House of Lords

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Thursday 11 September 2025

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Global Plastic Pollution Treaty

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:07

Asked by

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they are supporting progress on the global plastic pollution treaty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution and a strong proponent for an ambitious global treaty. At the negotiations in August, the UK worked closely with our partners to push for strong global measures, effective measures of implementation and the ability for the treaty to develop over time. We are therefore very disappointed that no agreement was reached, but the UK remains committed to reaching an agreement when negotiations resume.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. As she says, in light of the rejection of any limits on plastic production by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the United States at the recent intergovernmental negotiating committee, will the Government, along with other high-ambition countries, consider moving from the current consensus decision-making process to one on a voting basis at the intergovernmental negotiating committee to accelerate progress? Finally, given that the UK itself has one of the highest plastic waste levels per person globally, including UK households throwing away 60 items per week, when will the Government bring forward their promised regulations to restrict the export of plastic waste from the UK?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the first part of the question, the INC has been adjourned; it will be resumed at a later date, at a time to be agreed. We remain steadfast in our commitment. We think that it is important to work with all countries if we are to make the kind of progress that we need in order to make a real difference. So, although no agreement was reached in Geneva, and neither of the two treaty texts put forward by the chair was accepted as a starting point, progress was made on other areas of the treaty. It is important to point out that this was not a complete waste of time. For example, the work the UK co-led with Chile and Panama to progress articles on product design and releases of plastic production in the environment resulted in a much better understanding of country positions and progress towards a landing zone. So we will keep all options under review, but we will continue to work towards a treaty that has broad support, because we want to have absolute maximum impact. Regarding the domestic policy that my noble friend mentioned, we are very keen to work and drive towards a more circular economy. We want to recycle more plastic waste, and we also need to ensure that it is recycled in the most effective and appropriate manner. So all these things are being considered under our circular economy policy.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, given the collapse of the talks in August, does the Minister agree that a global agreement will not be reached if the petrochemical lobbyists continue to outnumber the independent scientists at the talks? What threshold of plastics needs to be found in human brains and reproductive systems for the oil-rich nations to treat this as an emergency and get everyone back to the table?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness’s last point was the main point—getting everybody back to the table. If we are to make a real difference globally, we need those countries with us to appreciate that the production method of plastic has to be part of where we move forward regarding plastic in the future. You cannot solve these issues on their own; it is a global issue. I know that it is incredibly frustrating that we feel that we have stalled. As I said, we have made some progress—we are getting to a better understanding of where other countries are coming from—and we will continue to try to make the further progress that we so badly need.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

It was reported last month that the sale of single-use plastic bags in this country jumped from 407 million items to 437 million in one year, a 7% increase. This was largely driven by online shopping, and particularly by the online supermarket Ocado, which accounts for about half of the single-use plastic bags sold. Although Ocado claims that most of its bags are recycled, we know that in the waste hierarchy, avoidance of use comes above recycling, and other supermarkets, such as Waitrose, provide online deliveries without plastic bags. Could the Government engage in conversations with our major supermarkets to encourage them not to use single-use plastic bags for food delivery?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. We have to continue to reduce our own plastic use in this country. Whereas recycling is important, if you do not have to use it in the first place, that is clearly an even better way to behave. We talk to supermarkets on all sorts of issues, and the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is something that we need to discuss and tackle with them. Consumers are expected to change their behaviour, but it is also important that retailers—and that includes online retailers—ensure that their behaviour is not adding to the plastic pollution problem.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, as so often, I agree entirely with the Minister on this matter—I know it is strange, but it is true. While we all deplore plastic waste—it is horrid, and I think that getting rid of plastic bags in general is fantastic—could she also reaffirm the enormous benefits that plastic brings in everything? We are carrying it now in our telephones and other things. It is really important that we do not throw plastics out with plastic waste.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The important thing is to make sure that we look at the pollution that plastic causes and the types of plastic that are most polluting. That is fundamentally what the debate is about.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Because of the importance of this subject, and notwithstanding the key blockers, is there a case for considering a mini-treaty of the coalition of the willing?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we are keeping all options on the table. Our priority at the moment is to try to move forward with all the countries, because that is what will make the biggest difference globally, but we will consider all options.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

First, let us put on the record that under the last Government and this one, the UK negotiating team was regarded as one of the best in the world on this subject. Do the Government agree that recycling alone will not solve the problem of the planned massive plastic production we will see over the next 30 years, and will the Government rule out unilateral UK action on production, which would damage our own industry? However, recognising that the oil-producing countries will never agree to a unanimous UN treaty, will the Government now take the lead with the 70 countries in the high-ambition coalition—a group that, as the Minister said, we founded—and the 130 countries which want to cut plastic usage, to agree a new treaty on reduction, use and the most dangerous chemicals used, and thus avoid the obstruction of the oil-producing countries? The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, stole my ending line: I was going to say, let us have a coalition of the willing, bypassing the cabal of the blockers.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are looking at all options, but we want to have a treaty that is going to make the biggest difference. The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that we have a fantastic negotiating team. We have made progress and we want to continue to make progress. It is very frustrating that production is becoming a blocker to agreeing a treaty, but if you take production out, you do not get the end result that is most beneficial. We want to continue working forward, but we will consider all options.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

In some ways we have let the horse out of the stable, in that we are flooded with microplastics ourselves. It is in breast milk, it is in placentas, and it is causing extraordinary newly discovered health problems—two of which, specifically, I would like to highlight. One is about crop production, in which people are reckoning that within the next decade, the yields from common crops will be up to 25% less because of the microplastics going through our water system. My question is: what are the Government doing on that? The other really big problem is that cheap school uniforms are made of polyester, which goes into kids’ bloodstreams. The European Union is moving forward very fast to try to ban that, at least in children’s uniforms. I ask those two questions of the Government about what they are doing about the problems we are already in and cannot immediately get out of because these are forever chemicals.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: microplastics and forever chemicals are of increasing concern. One thing we pushed for in the treaty was the inclusion of microplastics to reduce and prevent microplastic pollution from all different sources. One thing we did at INC-5.2, working with Chile, was to put forward a proposal on plastic product design. The criteria for that design were aimed at reducing microplastics that are generated through wear and tear. We know that that is one of the real issues. It is something that we are taking very seriously.

UK and EU Trade: Arts and Creative Industries

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:17

Asked by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards improving the conditions of trade between the UK and the EU with regard to the arts and creative industries, including for touring musicians.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have reset relations positively with European partners, agreeing a substantial package at the first UK-EU summit in May. This included a commitment to support travel and cultural exchange, recognising the value of artistic exchange, including the activities of touring artists. We will continue to engage with the European Commission to deliver this commitment. It is mutually beneficial and it will help our artists to contribute to Europe’s rich cultural landscape and support shared growth.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the almost five years since we left the single market have already cost us tens of billions of pounds in trade—that includes the creative industries—not to mention the red tape and frustration that continues to be experienced on a daily basis. For musicians touring, there has been no resolution of the problems of cabotage, carnets, CITES, the need for a visa-waiver agreement and the 90 in 180-day limit, which particularly affects ancillary staff. Bands cannot afford to tour; income and opportunities are lost. I say to the Minister: enough warm words, we need action.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Earl outlines the range of issues that the Government need to work through. There is action; it is a high priority for this Government, and it was a manifesto commitment to address these issues. The Prime Minister mentioned it as top of the list in relation to the EU reset to the Liaison Committee, and it came up in the Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this week. This is something that Ministers are actively working through, and I know that it is a priority for the new DCMS Minister covering this area and for the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the Welsh Government promote creative arts and education through the creative learning through the arts programme. Its aim is to integrate arts and creativity into the core of the education system, ensuring that all learners have access to creative experiences, regardless of their background. Does my noble friend agree that this is something that the UK Government could explore for young people in England?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

There are a number of ways in which the UK Government are working towards ensuring youth mobility and exchange. We are working towards association with Erasmus+ on mutually agreed financial terms with the EU. We want to ensure that any agreement reflects a fair balance between the UK financial contribution and the number of UK participants. I am aware of the work that the Government in Wales have done on this and that many young people have benefited from that programme.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have been giving those bureaucrats who like designing red tape an absolute charter to have a field day on this? When will they give us a reduction of, say, 25% in the number of forms that you have to fill in? At the moment, it is just ridiculous.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I repeat that this is a high priority. A number of noble Lords asking questions today have highlighted how complex this is in terms of reducing the bureaucracy. I can only reiterate that large parts of the Civil Service are working very hard to ensure that the bureaucracy is reduced. It remains a priority for this Government and for DCMS.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, touring artists are important for not only the UK economy but our soft power. Can the Minister update the House on the progress being made by the UK Soft Power Council in putting together a coherent and effective soft power strategy for the UK?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I agree that they are an important part of soft power. I revert to the noble Lord on specifics around the UK Soft Power Council, which he has managed successfully to segue to from a quite specific Question. I will write to the noble Lord in due course.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, before the EU-UK summit in May, I raised the issue of withholding tax which impacts our orchestras when they tour in Germany, Spain and Italy. In Germany, withholding tax is reclaimable, but it can take two years to be refunded. One orchestra has £200,000 outstanding and will shortly claim another £50,000 but then have to wait two years. Removing or reforming Article 17 of the UK’s tax treaties with the EU or its member states could help to resolve this. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether our Government will try to find a resolution of this vital issue, which is having such a detrimental impact on the cash flow of British orchestras touring to the EU?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a really important point. The Government recognise the financial and administrative challenges that withholding tax presents for UK artists touring the EU. We are actively engaged with the sector to better understand the impact and explore ways to mitigate these burdens, but we appreciate that this is a significant burden on those who are already facing challenges touring the EU. As a result of all these questions, I will flag this debate to the incoming Minister so that he is aware of concerns within your Lordships’ House and of the wider issues that the questions highlight.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, next month the long-delayed additional travel document requirements come in. Have the Government done any work on calculating how much these will add to the delays, particularly for orchestras needing to move instruments through customs with heavy lorries, and how costly this will be?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

All the questions today highlight the significant range of challenges. There are ongoing discussions at a variety of levels within government with the EU as part of the discussions following the EU reset. I will not give a running commentary on negotiations, but I am happy to meet the noble Baroness to talk about this in more detail.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that barriers for touring artists are bad news for the UK’s £7 billion music industry and for an already squeezed economy. Over 20 EU member states have confirmed that they offer UK musicians visa and work permit-free short-term touring for UK musicians. However, the EU’s policies mean that there are still barriers. Can the Minister explain exactly how the Government are engaging with the remaining individual member states to remove these barriers, or will they commit to resolve this at an EU level? Please, can we have some detail?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I appreciate that this is a question for me from His Majesty’s Opposition, but these are things that presumably came up as part of the impact assessment when we withdrew from the EU.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, music is international. Having spent many summers touring with youth orchestras, for whom the problems are just as great as those for the professional musicians that have been referred to in the noble Earl’s Question, can my noble friend please add to the list of things that the Government are hoping to negotiate easier arrangements for youth orchestras to tour in Europe? It enriches their lives in every possible way, musically and in terms of travel.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely—we are looking to increase youth mobility through any scheme that creates new opportunities for young Britons to travel, whether as part of wider academic experience or exchange of culture, including youth orchestras.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, if this is such an important area for the Government, why do they not take action in those areas which lie within their own competence, such as making the St Pancras terminal CITES capable? Surely our negotiations with the EU would go better if we put our own house in order first.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Our priority remains keeping arrangements as straightforward and supportive as possible for musicians and the creative industries. I recognise how important musical instrument certificates are for touring musicians in the wider creative sector. There are no plans, however, to make St Pancras International a CITES-designated port.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, would it not be slightly easier if the Government’s approach to the reset with the EU was a little less timid? We could then begin to tackle some of the unnecessary bureaucracy and delays. There is a customs union that we could be renegotiating, and we could move further on that. We want a little more courage from the Government in standing up to the right-wing press and to the legacy of the Conservatives and now Reform.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I do not recognise the timidity that the noble Lord suggests that this Government are approaching this with. This Government have been extremely clear on what our priorities are for the EU reset. That includes not going in aggressively but working constructively with our EU neighbours to ensure that we get the right outcome to deal with the huge range of issues that have been highlighted by this important Question this morning.

Youth Unemployment

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:28

Asked by

[Lord Altrincham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the youth unemployment rate.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, too many young people are at risk of being left behind, without the right skills, opportunities and support to get started in work. This Government are determined to change that. We are developing a new youth guarantee with the ambition to give all young people access to high quality learning and earning opportunities. As a first step, eight mayoral strategic authorities began mobilising trailblazers to inform the future design of the youth guarantee. With adult skills moving into DWP, we are excited about the opportunities that we now have to bring together skills and employment to drive growth and opportunity in the labour market.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer and for her work and her commitment to young people. Unemployment for those under 30 is rising steadily. HMRC data every month this year has shown falls in payrolled employment of young people, offset by a small rise in employment for those over 65. Given welfare expansion, the enormous step up in personal independent payment expectations and the fiscal tightening on employers, where do the Government think that unemployment for young people under 30 will be in exactly one year’s time?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to flag that youth unemployment has been rising over the last three years. It is probably worth noting that there is always a higher rate of unemployment for young people than for older age groups; they tend to have higher rates of unemployment mainly because they are more likely to cycle in and out of the labour market around the age that they start into work. However, the trend is one that we need to watch, and he is right to raise it.

The noble Lord is also right to raise the fiscal context, but the real reason that I want to do something about this is not just for my colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—keen though she would be—but because we do not want any young person to leave school and not have the opportunity to learn more or to work. We have tried various things in different Governments, and we have now decided not to leave anyone behind. We are developing a new youth guarantee with a clear commitment that every young person should be earning or learning. We have people in different parts of the country trying to work out what works in their locality, for their young people and their employers. We are transforming apprenticeships, investing in greater support for young people and making sure we identify those young people who are at risk. Frankly, if they are not in education, employment or training at 18 or 19, that is a real risk for the future. We need to find them and support them.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s energy, commitment and drive on this issue. Would she talk to her new Secretary of State, whose team might then talk to the Chancellor, about examining how we might learn from the New Deal for Young People, which was introduced in 1998? The number of young people aged 16 to 24 who are out of everything is not just a personal and moral challenge but a societal and economic disaster. We absolutely need to make this one of the main pillars of this Government’s policy in the next three years.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend and pay tribute to him. He was a reforming Minister in the last Labour Government and did lots of work in this area. I am conscious that I learned a lot from him in those days. He is absolutely right that this is both a scandal and a challenge for the economy.

One of the difficulties we have nowadays is trying to work out how we reach young people if they are not engaged in society. I was talking to an experienced youth worker recently, who said that she is worried about the range of young people who are simply off-grid. It is not just that we are not aware of them: they are not on benefits or claiming anything; they are simply disappearing. Part of our job is to go out there and find out where they are. For example, trailblazers in different parts of the country are looking at how you track down young people who are not on our radar and then support them, draw them in and engage them in their spaces.

We are trying to find more creative ways to do this. I have talked to young people for whom school just did not work—they failed or were failed by school. But it is possible that they will engage in different kinds of apprenticeships or skills-based training, and that work experience might draw them back in. Our job is to find these young people, work out what will make the difference for them individually and give it to them.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I too welcome and commend the Minister’s passion and commitment. I recently met around 100 young people, as part of the work our diocese is doing, and their number one concern is the impact of technology and AI on their future jobs. There is now robust research in the United States on the likely impact of AI on entry-level jobs. Are the Government aware of that research and do they intend to commission research on the likely impact on the UK of artificial intelligence and strategies that might emerge?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate raises a really interesting point, and I am very glad to hear that he is talking to young people individually. I would always be interested to hear more about what they say to him, because I find that I learn a lot more from what young people say than from what anybody else says.

He raised a really important point about AI, which I know is an area in which he does a lot of work. We are starting to witness the impact of AI in the labour market, but there is uncertainty over the scale of that impact, especially over the next four years. The Government are planning against a range of plausible future outcomes. A lot of work is going into this in government. Most forecasters project that, in the end, AI will lead to a net increase in employment but with varying impacts across different sectors and for different people. When you get this kind of change and churn in the labour market, the people who lose out most are those at the margins. Our job is to try to make sure that we give those who would otherwise not succeed the skills to do so. For example, the Government are investing to transform apprenticeships and looking at more shorter courses and ways to give young people a chance to gain skills in new areas, such as digital and AI. We are conscious of it and are very much working on it.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Rook (Lab)]

My Lords—

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

We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches next.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, building on an earlier question and the Minister’s reply, she will be aware that, as well as young people claiming unemployment benefits, large numbers of them are not in education, employment or training. Given the lasting damage that long periods out of the labour market can have, especially at the start of a young person’s working life, what urgent steps—I stress the word “urgent”—is the Minister taking to meet the particular needs of this group? She has explained what we are doing long term, and I am grateful for that, but this is an urgent matter and so I would like to know what we are doing urgently.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I have just talked about what happens with young people who are hidden NEETs, as he describes. Let me turn to those who are NEET who we do know about—for example, those on sickness or disability benefits. The Government are determined to transform that. The noble Lord will have seen our Pathways to Work Green Paper, in which we describe wanting to create a new transition phase for young people from 18 to 21, such that, if they are looking to go on to sickness or disability benefits, we will treat them in a special way. We will support them from the beginning and give them the kind of help that they need. A lot of help is already out there; there is help for people with mental health and physical health issues. The bottom line is that almost everybody should be able to get a job. A small minority will not, but most will. Our job is to help them.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation have launched their August 2025 jobs report. Permanent placements fell for the 17th consecutive month. The number of candidates looking for work has increased, fuelled by redundancies, fewer job openings and economic business threats. Merck has pulled the plug on a £1 billion research site, and the prospect of the Employment Rights Bill and its impact is sending economic shivers down the spines of business. At the end of the list, as the Minister has said, are young people who are struggling to enter the labour market for the first time. I am grateful for the explanation about the programmes that the Government are undertaking, but can the Minister tell us what work they are doing with employers—the only ones that can create jobs—to incentivise them to help young people and integrate them into their workforce?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness commented on vacancies. She is very aware, as I am, of the facts of the economy and will know that vacancies have been declining steadily since spring 2022, when they reached a historic high. The decline in vacancies is a continuation of longer-term trends, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right: our job is to make sure that we give young people the chance to do this. She will know, for example, that employers who take on a young person under 21 or an apprentice under 25 are given complete relief on basic national insurance class 1 contributions until they hit £50,000. That makes a real difference. Above all, what will make a difference, if we want employers to take on young people, is to make them worth having. We have to skill them up, and give them the confidence to get out there and the ability to work in the workplace. That is what we are investing in now.

Nepal: Protests

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:38

Asked by

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Nepal following the recent protests about the ban on social media.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The UK and Nepal share a deep historic relationship. The Government are appalled at the violence that transpired in Kathmandu and elsewhere in Nepal, following protests that were triggered by the Government of Nepal banning a number of social media platforms, as well as by public frustrations about the levels of corruption and nepotism. In public statements in September, including with partners, we have condemned violence and called for accountability and a peaceful way forward. The UK supports fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights, including the right to protest and peaceful assembly. We are closely monitoring events in Nepal, along with our international partners.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. Your Lordships’ House will be as saddened as I am to see the chaos that has descended over Nepal over the last week. What started as a peaceful protest by Gen Z-ers against the banning of social media and corruption has resulted in more than 20 people being killed, Nepal’s Parliament being burned to the ground, a Government in chaos and a country under military curfew. We have a long and proud history and friendship with Nepal, based on over 200 years’ service of Gurkha soldiers to the Crown, but now is the time that Nepal needs our support. In recent years, bilateral aid to Nepal has fallen. I simply ask the Minister: is now not the time to review that level, not only in quantity but also ensuring that, as we move forward, bilateral aid will focus on good governance and democracy building to ensure that the young people of Nepal get the future they deserve?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, and for his service and close association with the Gurkha regiment. The UK remains Nepal’s largest bilateral aid donor, with funding currently invested in areas such as green growth, education and gender equality; we spend some £46.5 million each year on that. There is no indication at all that that figure will change downwards as a result of the incidents happening currently. He mentioned good governance, which is really important. Of the £46.5 million, approximately £5 million is spent on security and justice elements, and £1.6 million on rights, inclusion and voice, and gender recognition. I will take from his comments that need to keep good governance. We condemn the violence and will continue to work to ensure stability in what is a really important partner for the United Kingdom.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, what support are His Majesty’s Government—or, for that matter, any Government—providing to civil society organisations and human rights defenders in Nepal as they alone work to promote accountability for the violence that caused 19 deaths, and to protect fundamental freedoms?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an important point. As I have mentioned to the noble Lord previously, the UK is a long-standing partner, and the British embassy in Kathmandu currently forecasts that the entire spend of £46.5 million bilateral overseas aid for this year will be spent. There is a range of programmes within that, on business, resilience, infrastructure, rights inclusions, security and justice. Obviously, in the light of the instability that has occurred, the purpose and objective of the overseas development department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office there is to ensure that we help regain that stability, but to look at the causes and how we can provide resilience to ensure that we tackle some of the issues that have led to that instability.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, reference has rightly been made to the long and constructive relationship between Britain and Nepal, which includes a period at the beginning of the last century when suspension bridges were exported from Aberdeen to link remote villages across their deep valleys. May I make a specific proposal to the Minister? The Westminster Foundation—I declare an interest as one of its mentors, although not in Nepal—is working there, but it could extend its programme to include public and political engagement for Parliament. Will the Government consider doing that? This is vital work, which it is very well equipped to do. Its representatives are on the ground now, and it would really be helpful if they could be part of the process of ending this conflict.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not know of the link between Aberdeen and Nepal, but one of the great things about this job is that I learn something every day. The Westminster Foundation provides great support on a parliament-to-parliament basis to help with resilience, to look at good governance issues and to ensure that we can improve the scrutiny of and approach to government. I will draw his suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who I hope will be able to respond.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the lifting of the social media ban in the wake of these protests and the resignation of Nepal’s Prime Minister have rightly resulted in celebratory scenes in Nepal, but, of course, the issue of underlying corruption is more intractable. Can the noble Lord give us more detail on what steps the Government are taking to monitor and help eliminate corruption in Nepal?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the question; it is important. Nepal is responsible for its own affairs; therefore, the Government have to support good affairs being developed but not take over those issues. The £46.5 million we are currently spending and the programmes we are looking at will be utilised this year, but it is a fluid situation, and the Government need to examine the underlying causes and the potential to provide help and support to overcome those. As part of the review of future years’ expenditure and future programmes post 2025-26, I am sure the Government will reflect on the concerns the noble Lord has mentioned.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Can the Minister ensure that remittances from Gurkhas here in the UK, which are vital to some families back in Nepal, are still getting into Nepal? Secondly, we are a large donor to Nepal, and we have a long and established relationship, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought our influence was as profound as that of its neighbour India. With that in mind, what discussions are the Government having with the Government in Delhi about the current situation there?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Lord that the relationship between people who are receiving salaries or pensions from the United Kingdom as Gurkhas previously will still be maintained. In fact, I can also assure the noble Lord that recruitment for Gurkha regiments is still ongoing, despite the current unrest in Nepal. We are having discussions with international partners, and India is obviously a significant international partner. The important point from all the contributions of noble Lords is that an assessment needs to be made of what help is required to support stability and good governance, using this year’s £46.5 million overseas programme to support the objectives of stability, good governance, business and growth for what is a long-standing international partner.

Merck Research Site

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

11:47

Asked by

[The Earl of Effingham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on jobs and growth of Merck’s decision to cancel plans for a £1 billion research site in London.

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Department for Energy and Net Zero (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

My Lords, the decision by Merck, or MSD, not to progress its investment, with 126 jobs lost—I express my sympathy to those individuals—is part of a broader effort by MSD to optimise its resources. It announced in July that it would cut $3 billion per year by 2027 and that 6,000 jobs would go worldwide. MSD continues to employ over 1,600 staff in the UK across other operations, including more than 40 collaborative working agreements with the NHS, the Our Future Health project and UK clinical trials. We will continue to work with the sector to unlock growth.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but the cancellation of the Merck research site is not only a major blow for our life sciences economy; it cuts across many other sectors that work with Merck—accounting, law, banking and other professional services. It is a blow for research scientists in training, as those future job opportunities have disappeared. How would the Minister respond to the feedback from one of the largest pharma companies in the world that the UK is

“not making meaningful progress towards addressing the lack of investment in the life science industry”?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The decrease in funding for the life sciences sector, in terms of NHS purchasing of medicines, started in 2015 and has continued since. It has not been a good position. We are reversing that now with the Life Sciences Sector Plan to make sure there is proper investment. Some £2 billion is going in as part of that plan, and £500 million has already gone in for a manufacturing investment fund and £600 million for a health data research service. The changes we are making will continue to make this a place where people want to invest, but I reiterate that the loss of those jobs and the Merck research centre as part of its global cuts is very disappointing.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, a narrative is developing: AstraZeneca is relocating to Ireland; the Health Secretary walked out of talks with the industry in August on the voluntary pricing scheme for branded medicines; and now we are seeing this cancellation by Merck. Does this not call into question the whole of the Government’s VPAG policy, which has seen payback rates for new medicines unexpectedly surge to 22.9% in 2025? What are the Irish doing right that this Government should emulate?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising the VPAG scheme. The VPAG scheme, which was negotiated under the previous Government, turned out with a figure of 23%, which was completely unexpected on both sides. The industry entered the scheme jointly with government, negotiated it and that is the number it came up with. We have been trying to negotiate a better position so that the industry gets more from that and is not hit with 23%. That is the deal going on at the moment. We are trying to make the environment better for companies and to rectify something that ended up in the wrong place.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, although this news is very disappointing, can my noble friend say something about the bigger picture? My understanding is that a number of other companies are continuing to invest here and that our dedicated life sciences action plan is being widely welcomed across the sector. Can he update the House on those issues?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her work over the past year as a Minister in two departments, which I think she did brilliantly. There are indeed other companies that are investing. In the same period, Moderna has invested £1 billion in the UK, and BioNTech has invested £2 billion in the UK. There is significant growth going on in Isomorphic Labs, one of the latest companies doing AI drug design. There are numerous examples of companies that are investing. We have a Life Sciences Sector Plan that has been welcomed by industry, and we know that as part of that the commercial environment for medicines in the UK needs to be improved.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the UK is potentially the best location for life sciences investment in Europe, but it is undermined at present by the lack of agreement over the rebate under the voluntary pricing and access agreement. Will the Minister and the Government rapidly enter into mediation with the industry so that this can be resolved?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I reiterate my point about VPAG: it ended up in an unexpected place. It was negotiated in good faith by the previous Government and the industry, and the result was not the one that anyone expected. We are negotiating to try to get that in the right place. We got very close to a deal. That is clearly now complicated by a number of factors, including the prospect of tariffs from the US. We continue to talk to the industry regularly on all these matters.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, the decision by Merck is disappointing, but I am encouraged by what the Minister said about the way in which the Government are approaching this. Is it not the case that the botched Brexit deal and the failure by the previous Government to raise levels of investment have left us in this rather invidious position? This decision stretches back more than the past 14 months; it was left to us by the previous Government.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

There is no doubt that Brexit had an effect on the entire sector. It also had an effect on academia and led to us ending up with a very much reduced income from the Horizon Europe programme. There was a significant effect there. It is true that NHS uptake of new medicines as a percentage of the total has decreased; that decrease started somewhere around 2014-15 and has been relentless since. That has been part of creating an environment that is not conducive, and part of why, as part of the Life Sciences Sector Plan, we are determined to support R&D, company formation and growth and to make sure that the NHS is an adopter of innovation.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Unfortunately, contrary to the bigger picture just painted by the Minister, the actual picture is one of a 50% decline in investment in life sciences in the past few years, the loss of three major investments—AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Merck—and the fact that 35% of the newest drugs available on the continent are no longer available or not being made available in the UK. The unfortunate situation is that the Treasury is looking at this only as a saving to the NHS and is not considering the wider impact on drugs for patients, valuable UK jobs and the life sciences industry. Has the Treasury performed a cost-benefit analysis that looks at all the costs to industry, patients and business versus the NHS savings? If yes, will the Minister commit to publishing it? If not, will he commit to commissioning one as soon as possible before we lose any more jobs?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is a point I agree with: this is about the overall economic picture as well as the health costs. It is something that we need to look at as we think about the way medicines are used in this country. I think that the macroeconomic picture is different from the simple health economics picture, and it is something that is an active part of discussion. It is something I have discussed with macroeconomists, looking at ways in which we might think about introducing that as part of the system.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

Given the changes announced in the United States in the past year about its approach to medical research and pharmaceuticals, have the Government made any assessment of the gap that is widening in the US in terms of other countries being able to fill the gap, particularly for medical research? Is there a plan, because this is a global marketplace and unless we are quick other countries will soon take up the slack that America is creating?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

We should not be under any illusion: the US is the major powerhouse in pharmaceutical research and development and will remain that powerhouse. Despite some of the changes, there is enormous investment going into, in particular, private sector R&D in the US. However, the noble Baroness is right that there are changes in public sector funding. As I hope she will be aware, we launched a £112 million global talent scheme, with £54 million coming from the Government and the rest from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, looking for global talent to get to the UK. We believe this is a time when we can attract global talent into our leading universities and biotech scene.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

When I visited the excellent Chase Farm Hospital last year, I talked to the pharmacy. It had a lot of shortages of particular medicines. I have experienced the same in my local pharmacy. Is this a problem that the Minister is concerned about?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The shortage of medicines is always a problem. We cannot have a situation where essential medicines are not available. That speaks to better understanding of supply chain resilience. The noble Baroness will be aware that supply chain resilience came to the fore very much over the past few years, when it was obvious that most countries did not understand their supply chains. A lot of work has been done on understanding supply chains and making sure there is resilience for essential medicines. There are opportunities there in terms of how the UK can work more closely with Europe to ensure that we get better supply chain resilience.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware, because I have raised this issue with him personally, that when I was the Life Sciences Minister, I wanted to work with other parts of government which were involved in life sciences. When I asked my private office to do a survey of government, it found someone in the Treasury, someone in No. 10 and someone in DIT. We insisted that all people in government working on life sciences should meet together so that we could have a co-ordinated approach. I understand that those meetings did not continue. I have raised this issue with the Minister. Have those meetings recommenced? When did all the relevant people in government on life sciences last met?

My second question is about VPAG or VPAS. Given that many of the people who negotiate for the pharmaceutical companies have worked for the NHS, they will understand the challenges on both sides of the table. Could the Minister ask the industry for some blue-sky thinking, especially from those who have worked in the NHS and understand the pressures but are now working in private industry?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I have indeed tried to continue the brilliant work of the noble Lord on bringing together parts of government in this area; I met people from many different departments about this as recently as yesterday. We are joining up the life sciences sector right the way across government. On the point about blue-sky thinking, that is exactly one of the things we have done with industry leaders. We said, “Could you think about the most imaginative way to come up with answers to some of these?” We got a piece of work on that, and we will continue working with them. There are indeed people from the NHS working in industry and people from industry working here, and of course I have quite an extensive background of understanding the pharmaceutical sector.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

Would the Minister follow up my noble friend’s comment—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

Sorry, my Lords, but the noble Lord was not present at the start of this debate.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am sorry, but I was actually in the doorway, coming in. I would be grateful if I could ask the question, if that is possible. My noble friend Lord Markham raised an important point about the Treasury’s view of how these pricing processes function. The reality is that if we do not have the drug companies in this country, we are not just going to miss the opportunity for investment, we will lose the opportunity for clinical trials for our patients and individuals in the NHS to get access to these new medicines. I return to the question about an assessment of the overall cost of these measures and a proper assessment of the understanding of how investment from the biopharma sector in the UK actually adds up, not just in relation to the pounds, shillings and pence of the medicines.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I agree that this is a key area, and it is one that I am working on. I have worked on it with macroeconomists because it is something that we need to look at. We care about the industry in this country. We have two of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies based here and our largest company is a pharmaceutical company. Those companies are essential. They train most of the people who end up working in SMEs and start-ups, and they are the reason why we have such a flourishing life sciences sector here. We need to look at the expenditure, not just from a narrow health economics perspective but from a broader economic perspective.

Business of the House

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion on Standing Orders

12:01

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 17 September to enable Committee stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to begin before oral questions on that day.

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House and on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Wednesday 10 September.

“The UK Government are deeply concerned by Israel’s strike in Doha yesterday. As the House heard a few minutes ago from the Prime Minister, he and the Foreign Secretary have condemned these flagrant violations of Qatar’s sovereignty, which will set back the cause for peace and risk further escalation in the region. The Prime Minister has spoken to the Emir of Qatar to express the UK’s solidarity and support and to reaffirm our shared commitment to regional stability. The Prime Minister also gave his condolences for the death of a Qatari security officer killed in the attack. Sadly, Qatar’s Ministry of Interior has overnight confirmed the death of a second person.

Qatar is playing a critical role in mediating the conflict, driving efforts to secure a ceasefire and to facilitate vital humanitarian access to Gaza. That must remain the priority. This Government continue to support it in its efforts to push for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages cruelly detained by Hamas, the protection of civilians and the unrestricted flow of aid into Gaza as the vital first steps towards long-term peace and stability. That is the only way to achieve lasting peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis alike. That is why we are working with partners to develop a framework for peace that addresses governance, security, humanitarian access and political reform. Negotiation, not more violence, is the way to achieve that. We are actively working together with our international partners, including the G7 and the UN Security Council, to co-ordinate efforts aimed at de-escalation and to reiterate our full support for the sovereignty of Qatar.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister met President Abbas to discuss the intolerable situation in Gaza, the need for an urgent solution to end horrific suffering and famine, and the Palestinian Authority’s reform agenda, which is vital for a two-state solution. Today the Prime Minister will meet President Herzog of Israel and reiterate the UK’s grave concern following yesterday’s strikes, that manmade famine in Gaza must end and that the renewed offensive in Gaza must not happen. We will continue to push for a political resolution to end this conflict and strive towards a lasting peace”.

12:02

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, of course, it is important to remember that Israel has the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN charter. Yesterday saw further strikes by Israel, this time on Houthi targets in Yemen. We know that the Prime Minister met Israel’s leader, President Herzog, yesterday. Could the Minister tell us what was discussed in that meeting and what practical steps the Government are taking to contain the growing instability in the Middle East?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Of course, Israel has a right to self-defence, but the Government are concerned by Israel’s strike in Doha, we condemn the flagrant violation of sovereignty and stand in solidarity with Qatar. I extend my personal recognition and respect to the Emir for his continued commitment to supporting peace negotiations. In discussions that the Prime Minister rightly had with President Herzog yesterday, he reiterated that condemnation of Israel’s strikes on Doha, which violated Qatar’s sovereignty and risked further escalation in the region. He pressed him to stop the famine from worsening by allowing aid in and halting IDF operations in Gaza City. He also shared his condolences for the horrific terror attacks in Jerusalem on Monday. They both agreed on the need for Hamas to immediately release the hostages, and the UK will continue its work to seek an enduring peace.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Could the Minister confirm whether there were British nationals within the vicinity of the strikes? What advice is being provided to British nationals in that part of Doha and indeed in Qatar overall?

The Minister must be aware that this has been a deliberate attempt to both undermine and end any negotiations. That must be heartbreaking for the hostage families. With this and the deliberate use of starvation of the civilian population in Gaza, the Netanyahu Government are now consistently breaking international law. So what practical, deliverable and meaningful decisions will the British Government make on our relationship with the State of Israel and the Netanyahu Government to ensure that the message is not just diplomatic but: “an end to business as usual in our relationship”? The breaking of international law is now consistent and is not acceptable.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not aware of any British nationals being in the vicinity of the strike. If that is wrong, I will write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library.

On the question of international law, we expect all countries to respect international law. With respect to what we have done specifically, we have supported, as the noble Lord will know, the calling of an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council, which will take place, I believe, later today. We have said, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in meetings and discussions with President Herzog that we deplore the strike that took place. We have reiterated the need for an immediate ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid to enter into Gaza, and all the various other things that in the end will lead to talks that will lead to a two-state solution.

It is important to that we repeat our thanks to Qatar and the Emir of Qatar, who has shown great dignity and statesmanship in saying that he will not allow himself to be deflected from the course of peace.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I declare the interest of being involved in a consultancy which provides advice to the Government of Qatar. Is the Minister aware that, as is my certain knowledge, for many years now Qatar has provided a safe space for Hamas and Israel to negotiate safely within Doha, and that money paid to Gaza has been channelled in some part through the Israeli Government? What happened yesterday, after Qatar’s part in resolving a large number of issues, including the freeing of hostages, was a heinous betrayal of trust.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes the point for himself in his question. We have close and strong relationships with Qatar. I myself hosted the ambassador of Qatar at the recent military tattoo in Edinburgh, and met others around that to reiterate the points that the noble Lord has made. Again, as I said to the noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the way that Qatar and its Emir have responded to this flagrant violation of its sovereignty is such an important statement about the Emir himself and the nation of Qatar, and they are to be congratulated on the fact that they are willing to continue with those peace negotiations.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I declare an interest as an adviser to the Council of Arab Ambassadors. The previous UK Government played a bridging role. Indeed, I remember facilitating the first engagement between the hostage families—I spent an extensive amount of time with them—and the Qatari Administration. The intervention of Qatar and other partners resulted in the release of 139 hostages. As has been asked, where do these events leave the status of Qatar today and the important role that it plays? Where are we on the important issue of bringing the war in Gaza to an end? Again, Qatar has played a key role, and the facilitation of the dialogue between Israel and Hamas in Doha was an important role that it was playing.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his question. The work that the current Government are doing is very much building on the work that he did when he was in government and the relationships that he established between this country and Qatar. I reassure him that we see Qatar as a continuing bridge between the different parties in the conflict in and around Gaza. Qatar is to be congratulated on the way in which it has tried to bring the two sides, Israel and Hamas, together to try to create a peace settlement. As the noble Lord points out, we continue to discuss with the Qataris how we might bring about an immediate ceasefire, see the release of the hostages and bring an end to what we are seeing in Gaza. Qatar remains crucial to that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this is day 706 of the detention of the hostages who were abducted on 7 October. The need for settlement negotiations is even more urgent than it was last week. Will the Government do all they can to urge the Government of Qatar to continue their most valuable efforts to secure some sort of settlement of the appalling tragedy in Gaza?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. Part of everything I have said in response to this Urgent Question has been to highlight the crucial role Qatar has played, is playing and will play in the future. What should ring out from the questions noble Lords have asked and the statement I am making is that we are grateful. We admire greatly the Emir, his Government and the people of Qatar for the fact that they are willing, and have said so publicly, to continue their efforts to bring about the release of the hostages and that peace settlement. They are to be congratulated for that. We do not take it for granted, but we admire and respect their fortitude in the face of what happened.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with everything the Minister said about the Qataris, the Emir and the commendable restraint they are showing in the face of unprovoked provocation. Can I ask, specifically in terms of chronology, is it the Minister’s understanding that Israel let the White House know of the attack on Qatar as it was happening, before it happened or after it happened? If it was before it happened, what position were the Americans in to forewarn the Qataris?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I do not want to speculate on who knew what and when, but I think it is interesting to note what the White House said in response to the attack that took place. The President himself said that the strike on Doha

“does not advance Israel or America’s goals”,

and he feels “very badly” about it. I think those White House comments speak for themselves.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, despite the difficulties that have been caused by this recent action, does the Minister understand the frustration of knowing that the Hamas leaders, who planned the butchery on 7 October continue to know where the hostages are and be involved in that, stay safe? For many people in Israel and around the world, that is a source of frustration. At least understand that, rather than just simply having a blanket condemnation of Israel.

Secondly, there has been a lot of discussion in the press and among commentators as though even the aim of removing the Hamas leadership was illegitimate. I do not remember such discussions when it came to taking out Osama bin Laden. Although I do not want the diplomatic fallout from what has happened, I think the aspiration, at least, to remove the Hamas leadership is one that I have some sympathy with.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me just say this: there is no difference in this House about the condemnation of Hamas. There is nobody in this House who would support Hamas or any of its aims and objectives. It is important to remember that. I understand the point that the noble Baroness is trying to make, but you cannot have a situation where a sovereign nation has its sovereignty ignored in the way that Israel ignored the sovereignty of Qatar, particularly, I would say—I think the majority of us would say—when Qatar has played an absolutely crucial role in trying to bring different parties and factions of Israel, Hamas and others together to try to resolve this conflict. I say again that the fact that they are willing to continue with those efforts brings nothing but admiration for them, the Emir and the people of Qatar.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (6th Day)

12:14

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee. Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I remind noble Lords that we have a large number of groups on this Bill to get through. While this is a Committee stage, I remind noble Lords of the guidance in the Companion, paragraph 8.81, on speeches at amending stages on Bills:

“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 many important contributions from all sides of the Committee, parts of our recent debates have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments. So that we can make progress on the remaining groups, I therefore ask all noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion and brief.

Clause 52: Spatial development strategies

Amendment 145

Moved by

[Baroness Whitaker]

145: Clause 52, page 73, line 21, at end insert—
“(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), an amount or distribution of housing or affordable housing must include Gypsy and Traveller sites, whether provided privately, or by local authorities, or by other registered social landlords.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include Gypsy and Traveller sites in the strategically important housing identified in spatial development strategies.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to open the sixth day of Committee on this hugely important Bill with a set of amendments which may appear rather niche to some, but which I suggest are fundamental to our national values.

I speak to Amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 and 176 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who regrets he cannot be here, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for Amendment 145, together with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who have joined me for the others. I am very grateful for their support. I am also very grateful to Friends, Families and Travellers for its advice, and to the Public Bill Office for its heroic efforts to get our requirements within the scope of this Bill.

All these amendments address a gap in our understanding of the population of the United Kingdom: the centuries-old existence of a small number of fellow citizens, some Gypsies and Travellers, whose traditional way of life and culture is to live in their communities on caravan sites. The fact that they may reside in a different pattern from the majority does not lessen the validity of their citizenship, as the law has attested. Their rentals of caravans and associated amenities on a site as their permanent residence thus means that they should be entitled to standards of provision just as much as those who live in bricks and mortar on a street. But the omission of general acknowledgment of their way of life has meant that there is a significant shortage of sites and that the conditions that they are obliged to live in can easily be—and are—markedly inferior, insecure, dangerous, polluted and the cause of multiple disadvantage, to say nothing of the damage all this does to social cohesion.

These amendments are the way to close that gap. Amendment 145 would make it clear that Gypsy and Traveller sites must be considered within the strategically important housing sites identified in spatial development strategies. Amendment 173 would firm up the current obligation on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers so that plans and planning strategies, including the all-important new spatial development strategies, never omit the need for sites again. Thus, local authorities could not ignore the excellent guidance so far produced by this Government and must observe any further guidance. It is of particular importance to put an end to the inconsistent approaches and methodologies of assessment of need which have resulted in such marked inequality of provision. Amendment 174 would clarify the role of government in revising or developing guidance, so that Parliament has a proper opportunity to debate what is best.

Amendment 175 would create a similar framework for local authorities to ensure that they meet the assessed need for sites in their area in their role in planning, development and infrastructure. Here it is essential that needs for both private and socially rented pitches, transit as well as permanent, are taken account of.

Finally, Amendment 176 addresses the failure to date of many local authorities to meet the assessed need for Gypsy and Traveller sites by giving the Secretary of State the power to make them do it when they are carrying out their functions in relation to planning, development and infrastructure.

In conclusion, these amendments together would at last recognise the validity of that small Gypsy and Traveller population that follow their traditional way of life as full citizens. They would go far to eliminate the neighbourhood friction that comes of their having to live on unauthorised sites. Perhaps most poignantly of all, they would enable proper education for the children who suffer so markedly and in so many ways from the insecurity of constantly being evicted. It would remove a very long-standing injustice to adopt these amendments. I very much hope that my noble friend will do that, or devise amendments that would achieve the same end.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who has long been the House’s champion in these areas and provides us with great leadership. I was pleased to attach my name to Amendment 145, also supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I would have attached my name to all the others if there had been time.

I will put the context of this issue. Noble Lords who follow the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography will know that, at the weekend, the biography it focused on was a woman called Elizabeth Canning who was one of the most celebrated criminal cases of the 18th century. She was a maidservant who disappeared for a month and said that she had been kidnapped. A woman identified at that time as an “Egyptian”—what we would now describe as a Gypsy—was then convicted of being responsible for that. if you read the account now, it is very obvious that this was simply a case of 18th-century prejudice.

I reference that case because it focuses on how long Gypsies in particular, but also Traveller people generally, have been part of our communities and lives, and how long the prejudice has gone on. In the 21st century, these amendments seek to make sure that we end some of that prejudice, at least in the structure of our law. We cannot always in your Lordships’ House address people’s attitudes, but we can address the law and make sure that there is provision for the housing needs that are so crucial.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has set out most of the technical points. I will make one additional point. This aims to ensure that we have a level of accommodation needs provision for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people across the country that is to the same standards. Some noble Lords might suggest that I am often talking about the need for local devolution and decision-making, but we also want a basic level of standard across the country, which these amendments would provide. That does not mean that a local authority could not do better than the basic standard; this is saying that there have to be standards and there has to be provision. That has to be the crucial starting point.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments and particularly to Amendments 145, 174 and 175. In so far as Amendment 145 is concerned, which requires there to be an assessment, I am not sure that the amendment is actually needed. I have put many local plans through the local planning system, and this has been an integral part of our system. In fact, the inspector has written to us on more than one occasion to say that plans for building, housing, businesses and other environmental goods must be pari passu—alongside and equal with—the requirements to assess Gypsy and Traveller sites. The sense of what Amendment 145 seeks to achieve is already done—and I have the scars on my back to prove it.

As a leader, I have taken my responsibilities for this part of the population very seriously. One of the very last steps I took as the leader in my authority when I joined your Lordships’ House was to commit £1.8 million out of a net budget of £12 million—a significant proportion—to a complete refurbishment and upgrade of a transit site which, when it returned to us from a long lease, needed to be knocked back into shape and made decent. No one understands the importance of this more than I do.

I know that the guidance is listed in Amendment 175, but the custom and practice and effect of these assessments has changed since Covid. That has resulted through mission creep, though well meaning, to a systematic overstatement of the requirements as opposed to previous assessments. I draw noble Lords’ attention to some of the methodological changes. Amendment 174 contemplates a restatement of how we make these assessments and so it is important to lay before the Committee my knowledge of how the methodology has changed.

There has been a material reduction in travelling since Covid. Evidentially the use of transit sites has reduced, and the annual caravan count supports this assertion. The new methodologies that we seem to be sleepwalking into place significantly less regard and importance on the caravan count, a system that has supported the population over many years and has stood the test of time.

There have been other methodological changes. Instead of the face-to-face interviews that consultants engaged by councils have previously undertaken, there has been a switch to telephone interviews. Instead of the rigour and observation of family circumstance and history of travelling, custom and practice now is simply to ask youngsters whether they want a house. It is capturing wants not needs, with leading questions.

This is the point that we need to focus on. There needs to be more rigour as it is leading to a systematic overcounting. If you ask two youngsters whether they would like to have a house and they say yes, and then eventually they get together, the initial need for two is really for only one house, because they got together and are living in the same dwelling house.

I do not want to go through every single enumeration of all the changes, but we need to recognise that there has been a change in methodology since Covid, and the apparent increase in need is partly as a result of those changes and confusion between needs and wants. This is important.

As to my opening remarks, if the inspector places enormous weight on the importance of having a Gypsy and Traveller assessment alongside other parts of the local plan, if there has been a systematic overstatement and misrepresentation then otherwise good local plans could be sent back to the drawing board on a false premise. As the leader of the District Councils’ Network, although I cannot remember the precise example, I recall other districts where they suffered that indignity.

It is not good for the families concerned to have a misrepresentation, it is not good for the local economy to have plans delayed, and it is certainly not good for the national economy with the consequential of stopping building. By all means we must have the counts, but the methods must be robust and evidentially based. We need to get back to the system as it was, tried and tested, rather than the situation we have been sleepwalking into.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I support this group of amendments, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I speak on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who has signed her name to all the amendments in this group.

I will not take up a lot of your Lordships’ time. It is a pleasure to support these amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and others for proposing them. It is essential that, in this Bill, all communities and sections of society are included. It is important that we make sure that the Bill represents the needs of the Traveller and Gypsy communities.

Amendment 145 makes explicit something that is currently uncertain in the Bill: that Gypsy and Traveller sites must be recognised as part of the housing need when the strategic development plans are drawn up. The need for clarity is absolute and, without it, there is a danger that these communities will fall through the cracks and their needs will not be properly met and accounted for.

Amendments 173 and 174 seek to establish a statutory duty for local authorities to assess Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and to conduct those assessments according to clear and consistent national guidance. These amendments are vital. We need consistency in methodologies, which often vary from area to area. These assessments are subject to criticism and there is worry about incoherence in the way they are done. We need to provide proper, clear and rigorous guidance to make sure that these obligations are carried out fairly and equitably across all areas and communities.

12:30

Amendment 175 places a statutory duty on local authorities to meet identified needs, which is also important—that would simply not happen without this duty. We have seen a real decline, as only 30 sites have been built since the change in the 1994 provision.

Amendment 176, giving the Secretary of State powers to intervene when local authorities fail in their duties, simply ensures accountability. It prevents local authorities setting aside their obligations, which is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is not in his place, made a similar point when we discussed local area community energy plans. It is essential in the current climate that these powers are set in statutory law, so that there is certainty across local authorities and accountability for all local authorities to deliver them.

Our planning and infrastructure need to take account of everybody in society, and all communities need to be represented and protected. These are vital amendments to help make sure that that happens and that local authorities and other bodies are accountable.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will make just one point. While I very much agree on the necessity of accurate and supportive assessments of the needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities, alongside that, and as part of that, I hope that the needs of show people will not be forgotten. As a Member of Parliament, I had the pleasure of having quite a substantial show people site, which was developed from what was previously a Traveller site, and they were extremely good neighbours. Their needs should be taken into account. I do not want to see us in a situation where the loss of a Traveller site is treated as a detriment if, as in our case, it is converted for use by show people to come and go on a long-term basis. That actually was very successful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this group of amendments, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. On these Benches, we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that Gypsy and Traveller communities have access to appropriate accommodation. However, we do not believe—to put it bluntly—that these amendments are the right way forward. Local authorities already have duties under existing planning and housing law to assess accommodation needs across their communities, including those of Gypsies and Travellers.

To impose further statutory duties of the kind envisaged in these amendments risks unnecessary duplication and centralisation, adding bureaucracy without improving outcomes. We believe that the better course is to ensure that the current framework is properly enforced, rather than creating new and overlapping obligations. For that reason, we cannot offer our support to these amendments; nevertheless, we look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 and 176, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a passionate advocate for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites. I was very happy to discuss this with her yesterday during the debate on Awaab’s law. We have had many meetings on the subject, which I welcome.

I completely agree with the need to ensure sufficient provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to make the distinction between show people and Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. I believe that local authorities can already make a distinction in planning terms between the two. If that is not right, I will correct that in writing. Therefore, local authorities have the ability to do that.

Amendment 145 requires the spatial development strategy to specify an amount or distribution of Traveller sites. However, under new Section 12D(5), the Bill would already allow for spatial development strategies to specify or describe housing needs for Gypsies and Travellers, provided that the strategic planning authority considers the issue to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. The new clause refers to

“any other kind of housing”

the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be part of its strategic consideration.

Amendments 173, 174, 175 and 176 seek to introduce measures into the Bill that would require an assessment of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs to inform local plans and development strategies. The amendment is unnecessary as there is an existing duty, in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of those people residing in, or resorting to, districts with respect to the provision of caravan sites or houseboats. This provision covers Gypsies and Travellers.

Furthermore, planning policy is already clear that local planning authorities should use a robust evidence base to establish Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and to inform the preparation of local plans and planning decisions. In doing so, they should pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and Traveller communities and should work collaboratively with neighbouring planning authorities.

We have also committed to a further review of planning policy for Traveller sites this year, as part of which any further changes, including the need for guidance on the assessment of needs, will be considered. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that we will not be sleepwalking into these; they will be evidence based after clear consultation with all relevant bodies, including the communities themselves. As housing legislation, planning policy and the Bill already adequately support the provision of Traveller sites, I therefore ask my noble friend not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support, as well as for the support given by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe to an amendment covering the principles of this group that was taken very late at night on a previous day in Committee.

I commend the actions taken by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in his own local authority, but, sadly, the evidence I have seen does not confirm what he says about assessment of needs and accommodation provision working well over the whole country.

I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for stepping up for the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, to express the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his welcome reminder of the very similar position of show people.

My noble friend the Minister has shown her usual welcome sympathy for the problems that we have been debating. I am grateful for her comprehensive answers and the glimmer of hope she extends to finding solutions. I know that she knows that I intend to pursue those solutions. I look forward to our further meetings. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 145 withdrawn.

Amendments 145A and 145B not moved.

Amendment 146

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

146: Clause 52, page 73, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—(a) list any rivers or streams identified in the strategy area,(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified rivers or streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage, and(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a special development strategy to list any rivers and streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 146 and speak to Amendment 354 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Roborough. Amendment 146 would require spatial development strategies to list any rivers and streams within their areas, to outline specific measures to protect them from environmental harm, and to impose a clear responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. Amendment 354 would designate a river or stream as a protected site. Amendment 147, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, similarly requires spatial development strategies to specifically identify chalk streams within their areas.

Amendment 152ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, seeks to ensure that animal welfare is explicitly considered when spatial development strategies are produced. This amendment responds directly to the concerns raised by the Government’s Animal Sentience Committee in its June letter to Ministers, which highlighted that the Bill as drafted does not pay due regard to the welfare of sentient animals. It is crucial that our planning framework acknowledge and integrate animal welfare as a key consideration alongside environmental protections.

These amendments are vital. They recognise the urgent need for bespoke protections for our rivers and chalk streams, which are not only key environmental assets but are deeply woven into our national heritage. I am grateful to see many noble Lords across the Committee expressing the same concerns and recognising the unique value of these precious water courses.

I will also speak briefly to Amendments 148 and 150, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 178, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Amendments 148 and 150 seek to ensure that spatial development strategies include explicit policies to protect chalk streams and take proper account of local wildlife sites. Amendment 178 would ensure that local plans align with the land use framework and local nature recovery strategies. Chalk streams are not merely beautiful and iconic features of our landscape; they are symbols of our natural and cultural heritage. Often described as England’s rainforests, they are globally rare, ecologically rich and uniquely vulnerable, yet they face increasing threats from development pressures, pollution, over-abstraction and the escalating impacts of climate change.

Tragically, none of England’s rivers, including our chalk streams, currently meets the standard of good overall ecological health. This Bill offers a significant opportunity to embed the bespoke protections identified by the CaBA Chalk Stream Restoration Strategy directly into our planning system—protections that these rare waterways so desperately need. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill should ensure that growth is paired with stringent protections for these vital habitats, especially given that, across the south and east of England, chalk streams are already heavily impacted by over-abstraction and wastewater outflows.

In conclusion, can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the Environment Agency’s 2024 event duration monitoring dataset, particularly regarding the role of chalk streams in achieving the Environment Act’s targets to restore our precious waterbodies? I look forward to her response, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 147 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and Amendment 148 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, both of which deal with the issue of chalk streams, which has been well touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I give the apologies of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who is unavoidably in Papua New Guinea on a diocesan link meeting. If he were here, I know that he would wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support for his amendment.

There are many noble Lords in this Committee who know a lot about chalk streams. It was interesting to hear the Minister last week say that she knows about them because she has a chalk stream in Stevenage. They are globally significant, and their pristine water conditions and stable temperature are home to some of our most endangered species, including water voles, the long-clawed crayfish and kingfishers, so they really need our protection. I will not go into the issue of where the protections come from, because that was covered so well by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

When this issue was raised in the Commons, the Minister said that these additional protections were unnecessary. I contend that that is the wrong approach. The reasons the Minister gave in the Commons for it being unnecessary to have these additional protections in spatial development strategies were, first, that protection was provided in local nature recovery strategies. For those of us who are familiar with chalk streams, we know that they cross counties, and local nature recovery strategies are specific to individual areas. LNRSs therefore cannot deliver the protection that chalk streams need to cover that cross-county boundary.

12:45

The second reason given was that there is protection for chalk streams in the NPPF. However, that is not specific to chalk streams. Unless chalk streams have specific protection, they will deteriorate further. There are only 220 chalk streams in the UK, yet we have 85% of the world’s chalk streams. Of those 220, only 11 have any form of protection, because they are either SSSIs or SACs. Even they are not protected well enough. Over the summer, when we were on recess, there was an interesting piece in one of the broadsheets about the River Avon, a chalk stream that covers both Wiltshire and Hampshire, where there has been a significant decrease in wildlife and invertebrates. It is meant to have some form of protection through the existing protected sites system, but it is just not working.

This is not the first time we have talked about chalk streams in this Chamber. We come to them every time there is an environment Bill. They are really important not just from an environmental point of view but, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, from a cultural and heritage point of view. If the Government are serious about showing that they really want protections for the environment, now is the time to accept the amendments on chalk streams.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Bellingham—who will I think speak later in this group—and other noble Lords in their Amendment 146. I agree with everything that has been said.

Your Lordships may wonder why I am also so keen to support Amendment 147, in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who has just spoken most effectively. I declare an interest as the owner of a short stretch of the River Rib in Hertfordshire. I hope the Minister will not suggest that the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 147 is not necessary and will instead consider the arguments for special protection for chalk streams, as was accepted by the Government and supported by your Lordships’ House in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Two years ago, during the passage of that Act, I introduced an amendment designed to support a chalk stream recovery package and provide protection for our beautiful chalk streams as a specific, unique and precious natural resource.

I was delighted at that time that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, put her name to my amendment and spoke in support of it. I hope the Minister will not mind if I quote what she said:

“I am lucky enough to have spent my life living in the wonderful county of Hertfordshire. For those of you who are not aware, Hertfordshire contains over 20% of the world’s unique and special, natural and precious chalk streams.”

She continued:

“If our chalk streams were buildings, they would be UNESCO heritage sites. Let us protect them as though they were”.—[Official Report, 18/7/25; col. 2269.]


Like the noble Baroness, I was brought up in and live in Hertfordshire, and I was delighted that she appreciated the special and distinct needs of chalk streams, which have disproportionately suffered from pollution and excess abstraction. My noble friend Lord Caithness also supported my amendment. We successfully persuaded my then noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, to introduce a government amendment which broadly achieved the same purpose.

Can the Minister now confirm whether the Government intend to set explicit outcomes regarding the protection of chalk streams as specified in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? The previous Government had endorsed the “one big wish” put forward by the catchment-based approach initiative, CaBA, for statutory protection and priority status for chalk streams. Can she also say whether the Government intend to build on and maintain priority status for chalk streams? I think that she has supported the perseverance of CaBA, led by Charles Rangeley-Wilson.

The CaBA chalk stream strategy is very clear that a special status is needed for these globally rare and locally precious treasures, but progress on the strategy has been disappointing, although there has been a petition, “Don’t Abandon the Chalk Stream”, which secured enough signatures to require a government response, and the Petitions Committee of another place has requested an updated response to that petition.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained very well just now why chalk streams need special protection, so I will not repeat the points that she so ably made, but I will say that to take specific account of chalk streams in spatial development strategies would allow local authorities to provide a safety net to protect them from the indirect impacts of development where other regimes have failed to do so. Taking chalk streams into account should facilitate the action so desperately needed to curb additional demand for water and make sure that appropriate wastewater infrastructure is in place before development occurs.

The Rivers Trust is right in calling for chalk streams to be defined as irreplaceable habitats. This would minimise direct harm from development and encourage enhancement of chalk streams through the biodiversity net gain regime. The Minister supported these arguments in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I look forward to hearing whether she still supports them in this Bill before your Lordships now.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will concentrate chiefly on Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, to which I have attached my name, but I shall briefly comment on Amendment 148, very comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Indeed, we have majored on chalk streams and I suspect we will hear a lot more about them. I am just going to cross-reference a contribution I made earlier this week about the River Itchen and the amount of plastics and fibreglass fibres that have just been discovered in new research in that chalk stream. This amendment addresses permissible activities. We do not know where those fibres in the River Itchen are coming from, but we desperately need to think about what activities we can afford to allow and what the planning permission can be beside those chalk streams. The extraction of water is the obvious issue here, but we also have to think about pollution and we really have to apply the precautionary principle to these crucial environments.

Amendment 150 says that a spatial development strategy must take account of local wildlife sites, which is crucial in this terribly nature-depleted country. There are, by a very precise count, 43,992 local wildlife sites, of which we know the status of only 15%. That is what the Wildlife Trusts say. SSSIs have greater legal protection. We know that very often does not work, but these local wildlife sites too often fall under the radar and are not sufficiently considered. They are often stepping stones for wildlife to get from one place to another crucial environment, or parts of corridors that enable wildlife communities to mix, to get genetic diversity, among other crucial factors, so it is crucial that the spatial development strategy totally takes these into account.

I think this also cross-references Amendment 152ZA, to which I shall speak briefly. I am strongly in favour of this amendment and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for bringing it. I am sure that she is going to introduce it shortly, but it is about the welfare of animals being considered in spatial development strategies. We think about such things as light pollution, noise pollution, the cutting off of corridors and the isolating of populations. These things that human developments are doing do not sufficiently consider the welfare of animals, and they very much relate to local wildlife sites as well.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 152ZA and 216A. I hope that noble Lords will not think I am in any way discourteous, but I think that there has been a transposition of numbers on Amendment 216ZA. I cannot find any such amendment in the Marshalled List. I think what was meant was Amendment 261A. I am not surprised if anybody has become confused, with the amount of amendments, so I will speak to both.

The purpose of these two amendments is to ensure that the welfare of all sentient animals, both wild and domesticated, is systematically considered within the new planning frameworks established by the Bill. Amendment 152ZA addresses this for spatial development strategies and Amendment 261A addresses it for environmental delivery plans. We all understand the Government’s objectives within the Bill to streamline the planning system, deliver the necessary infrastructure and build more homes. Of course, these are vital aims. However, the Bill contains a significant omission that these amendments are designed to address. It is entirely silent on the welfare of the individual sentient animals living within the environments we seek to develop. This is not simply my opinion; it is also the view of the Animal Sentience Committee, the independent expert body established to advise on whether government policy pays proper regard to the welfare of sentient animals.

In its letter to Ministers this June, the committee expressed significant concern about the Bill. The committee warned that under the current proposals, existing animals—not just species of high conservation concern, but common species such as rabbits, voles or wrens—face severe negative impacts. They

“may be killed directly … by plant machinery … killed indirectly … if their burrows or food sources are destroyed … or displaced to highly uncertain futures”.

Furthermore, planning decisions will have a long-term impact on millions of wild and companion animals. The committee warned that the Bill appears to conceptualise “biodiversity” or “the environment” as abstract entities without recognising that these are populated by individual animals capable of experiencing pain, distress and suffering. Wild animal welfare is aligned with but distinct from species conservation.

Rather than protecting species at the population level, it is about improving well-being at the individual level. In fact, it is interesting that the Government grouped these amendments with others on the protection of rivers and chalk streams today, rather emphasising the committee’s concern that all “biodiversity” or “the environment” is being considered as one homogeneous group. Conscious of the time allotted to the Bill, I did not request to degroup on this occasion, but I assure the Minister that I will do so at the next stage if the Government do not give due consideration. The Animal Sentience Committee’s concerns have been echoed by NGOs such as the Wild Animal Welfare Committee and the UK Centre for Animal Law.

My amendments are designed to implement the recommendations of the Animal Sentience Committee in a constructive and proportionate manner. They are intended not to block development but to ensure that how we build is done responsibly and humanely. Amendment 152ZA would require that spatial development strategies consider animal welfare. It does not mandate specific outcomes and it provides flexibilities for planning authorities. In practice, it could mean such things as considering the impact of development on known wildlife movement corridors and roosting or breeding sites at the concept plan stage; specifying bird-safe lighting and glazing standards for tall or waterside buildings; or the creation of refuge areas with appropriate food and shelter for animals displaced during construction.

Amendment 261A would require that the environmental development plans drawn up by Natural England pay due regard to the welfare of all animals. This is about practical steps at the delivery stage, such as ensuring thorough preconstruction checks for hedgehogs or ground-nesting birds, avoiding key breeding seasons or requiring the humane relocation of animals where harm is unavoidable.

If Ministers are unwilling to consider legislative options on this, I hope they will give serious thought to what non-legislative policy commitments they could make in order to address the concerns of the Animal Sentience Committee. This could include, for example, making a commitment that the Secretary of State will include due regard for animal welfare as a prescribed matter for spatial development strategies or mentioning animal welfare in the regulations that they will establish for Natural England’s duties when preparing an environmental delivery plan. They could also issue voluntary guidelines on wild animal welfare-friendly approaches to planning, infrastructure, development and building. This could build on guidance that has been issued elsewhere—for example, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Good Practice Guidance for Habitats and Species, but with a specific focus on welfare.

However, I hope that the Government have a sincere commitment to animal welfare and will therefore feel able to accept these amendments.

13:00

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 178, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their support. This amendment concerns local plans. As we all know, when it comes to planning, local plans are really the infrastructure, the plumbing, of decisions on whether stuff happens locally, and how it relates to local nature recovery strategies and land use frameworks. I rather hesitate to speak about land use frameworks and have never talked about them in this House before. The noble Baroness opposite is known as the world expert in this area, and I am sure she will put me right on any detail I have wrong in her subsequent contribution.

Two revolutionary things are happening or are about to happen to how we use our land in England in particular. First, local nature recovery strategies, part of the very enlightened Conservative Environment Act, are now being implemented. Local authorities, primarily—the responsible authorities for local nature recovery strategies—are going through this process at the moment. A handful of strategies have been agreed by Defra and signed off, and I hope the remaining 20 or so will be fairly soon. They are all about attempting to ensure that the decline of nature in our nation, which we are all too aware of, is not only reversed but becomes very positive as we move towards targets such as 30 by 30 later in the decade.

With land use frameworks under consultation at the moment, we are expecting recommendations to come out from government. I think the wish of us all is to ensure that land is used in appropriate ways, that there is multiuse and that dilemmas—or what are sometimes seen as conflicts, such as between food security and nature recovery in our countryside—are not that at all, and everybody works together to the benefit of everybody.

My amendment is really very simple, saying that for nature recovery and land use to be successful—which I am sure this Government and the Minister want them to be—they need to be delivered. Delivery is the key issue and the key challenge. One of the fundamental ways they can be delivered—and they will not be delivered if this does not happen—is if they are integrated into and taken account of well in local plans. That is what this amendment is asking. Huge amounts of work have gone into local nature recovery strategies across England in terms of consultation and the work of local authorities, environmental groups, landowners and farmers. All of that has been enthusiastic and positive, but delivery cannot happen if they are not part of our planning infrastructure.

I am not suggesting that this amendment is perfect; I would clearly fall on the floor if the Minister accepted it as it is, but I ask the Government and the Minister how they will ensure that these two key planks of previous and present government policy can be delivered and implemented through local plans.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has just said about Amendment 178—apart from his remarks about my expertise in land use frameworks. I am not expert; I am just old and have been around the block for so long promoting the idea of land use frameworks that people get confused about whether I actually know anything or not.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, absolutely hit the nail on the head. We have quite a number of new plans concerning land and nature around at the moment, invented by various pieces of legislation and policy, and it is vital that local plans, which are a key vehicle, take account of them. Otherwise, what is the point of doing them? Local plans are central vehicles for the delivery of the land use framework and local nature recovery strategies, which the noble Lord ably pointed out the value of.

I would just question the Minister as to whether local plans will be required to comply with the land use framework and local nature recovery strategies. If not, what will the delivery vehicles be for implementing these important plans, which we have only just agreed were important and are now being worked through? If there is no implementation vehicle, what is the point of doing them?

It would be good also to hear from the Minister what the latest is on the land use framework. The Conservative Party, when in government, promised me the land use framework by Christmas 2022, and then by Christmas 2023. The Labour Government went out to consultation fairly promptly after the election, before Christmas 2024. I was delighted yesterday to hear the new Defra Secretary of State endorse the importance of the land use framework under her new regime. We are again getting pretty close to Christmas. Can the Minister say whether we might see the next version by Christmas 2025?

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 152ZA and 261A tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson. These would require spatial development strategies and environmental delivery plans to take proper account of animal welfare as set out in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. This is not about adding extra bureaucracy; it is about recognising a truth that we often ignore. Planning is not just about where we place bricks and mortar; it is about the choices we make for the land, the habitats and the creatures that depend on them. At present, there is a yawning gap between what is promised and what is delivered.

The University of Sheffield has shown that in new developments, 83% of hedge-grown highways, three-quarters of bat and bird boxes and almost half the promised hedges never materialised. Trees specified on planning plans were found dead and not planted at all. There are fine words in planning documents, but in practice animals are left without space or shelter. This is why the warning of the Animal Sentience Committee must be heeded. In its formal response on 27 June this year, the committee rightly stressed that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill conceptualises biodiversity as an abstract environmental good but ignores the lived experience of sentient animals, which will be displaced, harmed and killed during construction. The image it gave was searing—a bulldozer driving through a badger sett, burying animals alive, justified by the promise of a new sett to be built a decade later, never to be seen. The committee made good and sensible recommendations on welfare impact assessments, construction and timetables that avoid breeding seasons, and practical measures such as swift bricks, wildlife tunnels and hedgerow highways.

The case of the brown hare teaches us what happens when welfare is absent from the statute book. Once abundant in England, hares are now in deep decline because we fail to legislate for a close season. Hundreds of thousands are killed in breeding months, leverets are left to die, and populations are down by 80% in certain areas. If that can happen to such a cherished and loved animal, we should not be surprised that less visible creatures fare even worse.

EDPs risk levies being paid at the expense of impacts on animal welfare. The Bill risks directly impacting protected species, with bats, birds, badgers and hares uprooted from their habitats, distressed, or destroyed altogether. Conservation is not only about biodiversity; it cannot exist without animal welfare.

We must do better. Yes, there is a need for new homes and better infrastructure, but we also want living hedgerows, thriving trees, wildlife corridors that actually function and a countryside that remains alive. These amendments do not hold back growth; they simply hold us to a higher standard of responsibility. By adopting them, we would show that planning for the future is about not only housing numbers but the kind of country we wish to be: one that values progress, but not at the expense of wildlife, and builds for people, while safeguarding the animals which share our land.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 152ZA and 261A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. She and the Animal Sentience Committee raise the important point that the lives of individual animals seem to have been overlooked in the Bill.

When we work in policy-making, we always have to weigh up whole-population decisions—potential benefits to one group against potential harms to another. Of course, we have to do that, but we never forget that those policy decisions involve individuals. We do not forget it when they are individual people, and anyone who has been close to an animal, such as a pet, knows that individual animals have their own emotions—they can experience fear, joy and pain. It is important that we bear this is mind. We discuss animal welfare matters when it comes to pets—we discussed the docking of tails in pet animals just last Friday. Whether it is a pet rabbit or a wild rabbit, they have the same experiences, so it is very important for us to consider whether there are ways in which we can acknowledge that in the Bill.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 147 on chalk streams. I was brought up in the Chilterns and I have been studying some of the streams there for a very long time. As other noble Lords have said, they are the most wonderful bits of the countryside, with clear water—which comes and goes, but it is usually there.

I became involved in this when I opposed some of the work that HS2 was doing in trying to drill a tunnel underneath the chalk stream near Amersham. The Chiltern Society, which led the opposition, was very keen that HS2 put some boreholes down to check what the ground was like and make sure that drilling a tunnel close to underneath a chalk stream would not have any adverse effect on it. Of course, HS2, being the rather arrogant organisation it often was, said, “It is not necessary. We know everything that is going to happen there and it is all planned for. We won’t have any special protection apart from the normal tunnel construction”.

Of course, HS2 was wrong and when the tunnel got to underneath the stream just west of Amersham, contamination started, water levels dropped and there was a lack of water supply in some places. It said, “Oh dear”, and did nothing about it. It is all right now—I think it has all been solved—but my point is that if this amendment had been on the statute book 10 years ago, the local people and the experts would have had much more credibility in attacking a government organisation trying to build a tunnel than has happened so far.

There are probably many other examples and noble Lords have mentioned some, but it is important that we map these chalk streams and make sure that they are looked after, because they are very special.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 146, on which I am a co-signatory, and Amendments 147 and 148. I will be brief because we have already heard from three noble Lords who have made very powerful contributions—the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Berkeley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. We heard also from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, whom I know worked very closely on this agenda when she was chief executive of the CPRE 20 years or so ago.

As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, pointed out, 85% of chalk streams are in the UK and they face multiple threats, including the good example we just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Very few meet good ecological standards, and we are seeing a series of irreplaceable habitats being put at grave risk.

13:15

Most people, when they talk about chalk streams, think about the Chilterns and the Wessex counties—the great chalk streams of Hampshire and Dorset—but Norfolk is often forgotten about. It has one very famous chalk stream, the River Wensum, but there are a number located in my old constituency of North West Norfolk, including the upper reaches of the Gaywood, Babingley, Heacham, Stiffkey and Glaven rivers.

We have heard in this debate and others overwhelming reports of consensus on the national importance of these chalk streams. We also heard wholly conclusive evidence of the threats. I say to the Committee and the Minister that we now have a golden opportunity to take action and do something about it. I therefore hope that the Government will support Amendments 146 and 147 and find a way of incorporating into the Bill if not their exact wording, maybe their own wording, and make sure that we take action now.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 147, but before I come to that, I want to say how much I support what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. We need this jigsaw of plans and ideas to work on the ground.

The advantage of being sweeper behind my noble friend Lord Trenchard and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is that most of what I was going to say has already been said. I just reiterate the key point that we are failing to look after our national treasure of chalk streams. We have only about 280 in this country, which run from west Dorset up to Yorkshire, but those represent 85% of the chalk streams in the world.

Chalk streams are paying the price for being located often in some of the busiest areas of the country and they can be subject to both the direct impacts of development—for example, building next to a chalk stream—and the indirect effects of new development, in terms of additional water requirement and water discharges.

Only 17% of chalk stream water bodies are achieving “high” or “good” status under the water framework. It is clear that further work is needed to protect them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the recent work of Brighton University on the Itchen. One of the interesting things about that research—and I hope the Minister has read it—is the amount of tyre particles that were found. Can the Minister please confirm that any developments and infrastructure, including transport, will not create further pathways for contaminated surface water and road run-off to enter chalk streams and the drains, streams and brooks that feed them? Special status is needed for these globally rare and locally precious treasures to drive investment and ensure protection and restoration.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, mentioned the local nature recovery strategies. She is right that those in themselves are not good enough and there are streams in Norfolk and Suffolk that are not included within LNRSs. LNRSs cannot account for a catchment-wide approach as chalk streams often span multiple local areas, so it is vital that local authorities work together if we are going to save our chalk streams, and that is why the spatial development strategy is important to them.

In conclusion, these low-energy, globally important river systems cannot simply be moved and certainly cannot be recreated elsewhere, so off-setting any impact via approaches such as the nature restoration fund is impossible. The practical, sensible solution is to give them greater protection where they are and include them in any spatial development plan. When I was in government, I was very pleased to work with the Minister on chalk streams. We worked well together and successfully. The tables are now turned; it is up to the Minister whether she will work with us.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support several of the amendments and will speak to most of them. Amendment 146, the lead amendment, is, in essence, the right approach. The importance of chalk streams has been mentioned. I used to live near the chalk stream in Hampshire, the River Test, and as a Minister I visited many.

I welcome the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about the importance of local nature recovery strategies and the land use framework. My noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Caithness have gently teased the Minister—often it is easy to say things in opposition and then, all of a sudden, you have to face the realities of government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, asked about the land use framework. A couple of years ago, I wrote quite a substantial LUF. MHCLG—DLUHC at the time—was concerned about the impact it could have on housebuilding, when we were trying to get a combination of food security and the development of homes and the like. The good news is that it was Steve Reed, who was Secretary of State at Defra until a few days ago, who put out this consultation. Now, of course, he is Secretary of State at MHCLG. I hope that, in his new department, he will not put a barrier in the way of the land use framework, and that together with the new Secretary of State for Defra, Emma Reynolds, this can be published as quickly as possible. I am conscious that new Secretaries of State often want to have a look at these things, but I am sure that Emma Reynolds will trust the judgment of Steve Reed and have an excellent land use framework, which should absolutely be incorporated into spatial development strategies.

I will not say more about LNRSs, other than to say they will be one of the most critical things to happen as a consequence of local government. Therefore, it is a no-brainer that they should be an integral part of SDSs.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who tabled the amendment, cannot respond, but I will pick up on that separately. I want to get clarity on permissible activities. I would not want the SDS to start getting into the nitty-gritty of where there are existing rights. For example, there will be challenges around abstraction rights for a lot of landowners and farmers in 2027, when there will be a significant reduction in abstraction. The people putting together the SDS should be aware of that and need to think carefully about how that interplay goes. However, while it should be considered, I am not convinced the SDS should be the way in which permitting starts to happen—though I may have misinterpreted the amendment.

One reason why the Test is the best place in the world to go fishing for various kinds of trout is that it is a chalk stream. It was fishing that got Feargal Sharkey into the whole issue of water. Through my friend Charles Walker, who used to be an MP until the last election, when he retired—it happens to be his birthday today, so happy birthday to Charles—I know that anglers are very protective of those rights and substantially concerned about the water. My noble friend referred to the importance of good eco status. The Environment Agency’s principal measure in assessing eco status is the size of fish—it is a classic measure. There is a reason for that, and, as a consequence, that is why anglers are so involved. I would be nervous if the spatial development strategy started to get involved in aspects of licensing in that regard.

My noble friend Lord Trenchard tabled the related Amendment 355, which is more strategic and will be debated in a later group, but in one fell swoop Amendment 354 would give formal designation and protection status to rivers, which at the moment only 11% of chalk streams have. That is a clever device in order to achieve the outcomes your Lordships would want.

I wish the Minister well in making sure that her new Secretary of State gives a clean bill to what he proposed in his previous role, and that we get the land use framework as a welcome Christmas present, not only for this House but for the country at large.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I make one suggestion to the Minister, if I may. One way of achieving the objective that many of us seek for chalk streams would be to include specific reference to them in footnote 7 to the National Planning Policy Framework. That would carry through very successfully into many other decisions.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much hope that, when considering how to implement what I hope will be agreement with these amendments, the Government pay close attention to the need to gather much better data than they have at the moment. The financial strictures on the Environment Agency over the last couple of decades have meant that its water quality monitoring is a long way short of what it should be.

I take this opportunity to praise my brother, Tim Palmer, for what he and other farmers on the River Wylye in Wiltshire have done to create their own farmer-owned laboratory to monitor water quality and to take action which has considerably improved it.

There is a lot that can be done, but you cannot take decisions on how things are going to affect rivers unless you are collecting good data, and that is not happening at the moment. If the Government work with farmers to collect better data, they will find that they get better results from this and other aspects of their environmental policy.

The other aspect I want to raise is this. Please can we end the snobbish definition of chalk streams that seems to have crept in during the last Government? I put in a plea for the Lottbridge Sewer, which is Eastbourne’s chalk stream. These little chalk streams that occur in odd places around the hill and the escarpment are important parts of the natural tapestry of life. They need protection just as much as the Test or Itchen. The definition of a chalk stream should be water type and water quality, not whether or not I can catch a big trout in it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As ever in your Lordships’ Committee, it has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments. I thank noble Lords for tabling amendments on the important topics of the protection of rivers, wildlife and animal welfare.

I will pick up a couple of general points. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned the Environment Agency’s dataset assessment. I will reply to him in writing, if that is okay, because I do not have the latest update.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that I had said there was a chalk stream in Stevenage. I hope I did not say that, because that would not be accurate. There is a chalk stream just outside Stevenage, in the village of Aston, in East Hertfordshire. I think I remember commenting that I visited there with Feargal Sharkey a few months before the election. We had an interesting discussion with Mr Sharkey about chalk streams. It is not technically in Stevenage—it is just outside our borough.

Amendments 146, 147 and 148 all seek to add new requirements on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection of rivers and streams, notably chalk streams. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I am not responsible for the definition of “chalk stream”, but I am sure it is not just to do with how big the trout are that you can catch in them; there is a much more scientific method of defining chalk streams. I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to restoring and protecting chalk streams. They are a source of national pride. As one of Britain’s most nature-rich habitats, they support some of our rarest wildlife, from chalk salmon to trout, and are home to beloved and endangered species. There are just 260 chalk streams in the world and, as one noble Lord commented, 85% of them are in this country, which we can all be proud of.

13:30

The Government are already taking action to protect these iconic sites. New protections in the Water (Special Measures) Act enable us to hold water companies to account, ensuring that chalk stream habitats are preserved for future generations. I was delighted to see that, following our discussions on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. We are also prioritising action and investment for chalk streams. Water companies will invest £2 billion over the next five years to deliver more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration as part of our Plan for Change. We are reducing the risk of harmful abstractions by an estimated 126 million litres daily, protecting vital waterflows to these fragile ecosystems. I visited the Pix Brook chalk stream at Standalone Farm in Letchworth during the Summer Recess, and it was almost dry. We have to continue to monitor the water flow in our chalk streams. It still looked beautiful, but it is a real issue.

In addition, our storm overflows discharge reduction plan ensures that chalk streams receive priority protection as part of a record investment to improve nearly 3,000 storm overflows nationwide. Within our planning system, chalk streams are already recognised by decision-makers as valued landscapes and habitats of biodiversity value. These wildlife-rich habitats provide key ecosystem services and benefits for natural capital, and should be identified and safeguarded through local plans.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, commented on action that was taken previously. A chalk stream recovery pack was announced by the previous Government, but it is now out of step with our very ambitious programme of water reforms. Since the general election, we have launched root and branch reform to revolutionise the water industry and clean up our water environment. These are the measures that I have just referred to. I do not know the answer to his question on the updated response to the petition; I will follow that up with Defra colleagues and reply to him in writing, if that is okay.

Local nature recovery strategies offer a mechanism for identifying and improving chalk stream habitats, as they will map the most valuable areas for nature, drawing on key environmental evidence such as river basin management plans. Under new Section 12D(11) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, spatial development strategies are already required to take account of relevant local nature recovery strategies. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned road run-off into chalk streams; again, I do not know the exact answer to his question, so I will respond in writing. Where chalk stream protection is of strategic importance, new Section 12D(1) makes it clear that spatial development strategies must include policies on land use and development. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his suggestion about a footnote to the NPPF; I will take that back to the department. It was also great to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the initiative on the part of his brother and other farmers. We welcome that sort of data on water quality.

Amendment 150 seeks to place similar requirements on strategic planning authorities in relation to local wildlife sites. As mentioned previously, spatial development strategies are required to take account of local nature recovery strategies. Strategic planning authorities already have to take account of local wildlife sites in relation to the strategy area. Local nature recovery strategies should identify areas of particular importance for biodiversity and Defra’s statutory guidance clearly states that this should include all existing local wildlife sites where possible.

It is our view that local plans are best placed to include policies protecting these sites from development. The National Planning Policy Framework requires plans to identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity. Planning practice guidance gives further direction on how plan-makers should select and protect local wildlife sites.

Amendment 178 seeks to ensure that local plans comply with the land use framework and nature recovery strategies. I am grateful to my noble friend, as ever, for her contributions to these discussions. The land use framework was consulted on between January and April this year. The responses and subsequent workshop feedback are currently being analysed and will inform the production of the land use framework, which will be produced—I am sorry to say this—“in due course”. As noble Lords will be aware, it is not my department, but I will ask officials and my noble friend the Minister for Defra whether there is any update on timing. Noble Lords are quite right that we now have the former Secretary of State for Defra as our Secretary of State, so there is a nice join-up there.

I share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that local plans prepared by local planning authorities should help protect and restore land that is vital for nature recovery, while fulfilling our ambitions to deliver the homes and infrastructure that we know our country so desperately needs. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value. The framework also sets out that local plans should identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks.

Furthermore, the Environment Act 2021 introduced local nature recovery strategies that are now being rolled out across England. These spatial strategies for environmental improvement are developed in partnership with local stakeholders and enable strategic authorities to agree a set of priorities for nature recovery. They map the most valuable existing areas for nature, which are often underpinned by other protections in the planning system, and areas which could become of particular importance for biodiversity. The Government published new guidance in February 2025 setting out the important role of local nature recovery strategies in the planning system for plan-making and decision-making. Under provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 expected to come into force later this year, local planning authorities will need to take relevant local nature recovery strategies into account when preparing plans. These provisions apply not only to local plans but to neighbourhood plans and, importantly, they are proposed to apply to new-style spatial development strategies via Clause 52 of this Bill.

The Government remain of the view that we need to avoid a binding relationship between local nature recovery strategies and plans, as plan-making needs to consider all the issues facing the local area and community, tested through rigorous requirements for consultation and examination. It is conceivable that in some cases the plan-making process may conclude that an aspect of a local nature recovery strategy needs to be addressed in a different way, so a degree of flexibility is needed to allow for that. Under the new system for preparing local plans, as set out in our February 2025 response to the consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms, local planning authorities will be required to prepare a statement of compliance which will include details of compliance with relevant plan-making legislation, including how the emerging local plan has taken account of relevant local nature recovery strategies.

In conclusion, I agree that plans should be informed by local nature recovery strategies and the future land use framework and reiterate that the legal and policy framework to appropriately enable this is already in place. For these reasons, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Amendment 354, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would add any river or stream to the definition of a protected site for the purpose of the nature restoration fund. The nature restoration fund has been developed to provide an alternative route to discharging existing statutory environmental obligations that would otherwise be required of developers in relation to protected sites. It will facilitate a strategic approach to discharging those existing obligations, but will apply only where existing legal obligations are in place and where a feature is already designated as part of a protected site under the relevant legislation.

As many in this House will be aware, there is an existing process for designating protected sites, based on scientific evidence and the advice of Natural England, which ensures that waterways that need protection will receive it. We believe that the question of the designation of sites is best considered through this existing process, with input from relevant experts on the basis of the relevant need of a given site. So, although I recognise the intention behind this amendment, I hope the noble Lord will agree that the designation of sites sits outside the scope of Part 3 and that he feels able not to press his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for Amendment 261A—I apologise for the misnumbering on today’s list—which would add that an EDP must pay due regard to the welfare of animals, as per the definition in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Amendment 152ZA would require strategic planning authorities to have regard to the effect of their proposed spatial development strategy on animal welfare. Some developers do this incredibly well. I visited a site in Nottingham recently where detailed and specific provision had been made to accommodate the nocturnal habits of hedgehogs. The developers made a big feature of this, and it was really good to see that they had taken account of it. It was just outside a village, and the local schoolchildren had taken a great interest in it as well. So it is great to see when developers do that.

The Government recognise concerns on animal welfare, and we are grateful to the Animal Sentience Committee for its recent letter on the Bill. My officials will be meeting with the committee to consider this further. However, we do not consider Amendment 261A to be necessary, as we already expect the ways in which a policy may impact on animal welfare to be considered when formulating and implementing policy. This may include EDPs, which we would expect to consider and appropriately take into account potential animal welfare impacts alongside other relevant factors.

On Amendment 152ZA, it is unnecessary to add a requirement that strategic planning authorities have regard to the effect of their proposed spatial development strategy on animal welfare. Animal welfare is not generally considered a strategic planning issue. Further, if a strategic planning authority felt that animal welfare issues were of strategic importance because of its area, it could consider policies relating to the use and development of land as it affects animal welfare under the terms of Clause 52, which will insert new Section 12D(4) into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004—although I think such a conclusion seems unlikely. However, I will be happy to look at the non-legislative options the noble Baroness suggested, and I am sure my noble friend the Minister for Defra and I will be happy to meet with her to discuss those. Therefore, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today with such clarity, conviction and genuine concern for the future of our environment. All their speeches were thoughtful, constructive and rooted in a shared desire to see our planning system deliver not only growth but lasting stewardship of our natural heritage. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough for bringing forward Amendment 146, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for Amendment 147. Both amendments highlight the special importance of our rivers and in particular our chalk streams—an issue that has clearly resonated across all Benches.

If the Minister and the Government do not wish to take on board all the excellent contributions from this side, perhaps she will take on board the contributions from her noble friends. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about the importance of chalk streams. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, may deny being a world expert but we all know that she, possibly followed only by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, are the two top experts in this House on all aspects of biodiversity. The noble Baroness has signed Amendment 178 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which calls for local development plans to pay attention to local nature recovery strategies—that is absolutely right; they are key. Local nature recovery strategies would inevitably include chalk streams, so I suggest that, by implication, the noble Baroness is entirely in support of what we are saying about protecting chalk streams, just as I completely support her in protecting ancient woodlands.

I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that there are 48 local nature recovery strategies. I think only four have been announced at the moment, maybe five, Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s being the last one. So there are about 44 still to go, but Defra hopes that they will all be concluded by the end of this year.

13:45

Chalk streams are not only rare and ecologically rich but are an iconic feature of English landscape. As has been said today, they are found predominantly in the south and east of England, and they are globally unique ecosystems. Their clear, mineral-rich waters support a remarkable diversity of wildlife, they hold deep cultural and environmental value, yet they are among our most valuable, or rather, vulnerable, natural assets—well, they are both.

Planning policy must play a role in protecting those sensitive habitats. Development need not come at the expense of our natural water systems. The amendments we have discussed today do not seek to hinder progress but rather to embed a duty of care within our planning frameworks to ensure that spatial development strategies properly consider the presence and condition of rivers and chalk streams. This is not about imposing unnecessary burdens but about enabling strategic authorities to plan with full awareness of the environmental context in which growth takes place.

I have been encouraged by the thoughtful and collaborative tone of today’s debate. I hope we can carry that spirit forward as we work to refine the Bill and ensure that it delivers for both people and the natural places we all value so deeply. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 146 withdrawn.

Amendments 147 to 150 not moved.

Amendment 150ZA

Moved by

[Lord Jamieson]

150ZA: Clause 52, page 74, line 14, at end insert—
“(12A) Any local plan prepared after the spatial development strategy is in place must not be inconsistent with, or (in substance) repeat, any policies in the strategy.(12B) Where any local plan is subject to representations under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/767) (preparation of a local plan), or a subsequent stage of preparation process, it may continue on the basis existing at the time of that stage of the preparation process.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the principle of finality. This amendment seeks to ensure that local plans are aligned with spatial development strategies, while allowing transitional arrangements for local plans already at an advanced stage of preparation.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in my name, Amendments 150ZA and 150ZB, concern coherence in the planning pyramid. Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers similar ground.

The Bill rightly proposes that spatial development strategies should be aligned with national policies. That is entirely proper, but it is equally important that the whole planning framework—the pyramid, you might say—of national policy guidance, spatial development strategies, local plans and neighbourhood plans is coherent. We must not have a situation where they contradict one another: where an application complies with one part of the system but is rejected for failing to comply with another. That is an issue that—I declare my interest as a member—the previous Government’s London Plan review identified. The conflicts between the London Plan and local borough plans caused issues.

Amendment 150ZA makes it clear that a local plan must not be inconsistent with the relevant spatial development strategy. This does not mean a top-down approach. It does not mean that local plans have to be identical—quite the opposite. They will be tailored to local areas, they may go further in key respects, and they will provide much of the detail that a high-level spatial strategy cannot and should not cover. Equally, those developing a spatial development strategy should be building on existing local plans, not cutting across them.

I also know from my experience as a councillor, having borne the scars of a local plan that took eight years to deliver, that one of the greatest challenges in plan-making is the constant shifting of the planning landscape: new regulations and guidance arriving part-way through the process, forcing local authorities to retrace their steps and start again, causing serious delays. My amendment therefore proposes a point of stability: that once a local authority has reached Regulation 18 stage—that is where you go out and consult on the broad strategy with residents and others on the plan, and that is typically about halfway through to submission—any subsequent changes resulting from a new spatial development strategy should not require the authority to start again; in other words, the clock stops. Obviously, when the local plan is reviewed again in five years, it would take into account the new spatial development strategy. That gives certainty to the council to complete its work.

Amendment 150ZB follows the same principle for neighbourhood plans. Again, it would require that neighbourhood plans not be inconsistent with the local plan, but again, this is not a top-down instruction. Neighbourhood plans will, rightly, reflect local priorities. They may also choose to go further—for instance, by allocating more housing where there is a specific local need, or by setting local priorities that speak to the character of the area. Local plans, in turn, should build on the work already undertaken by neighbourhood forums and parish councils. Here too, there needs to be a fair transition. Where a new local plan is adopted part-way through the preparation of a neighbourhood plan, my amendment provides that there should be a 12-month window in which that neighbourhood plan can be completed on the basis of the previous local plan. That strikes the right balance. It gives communities certainty, avoids wasted effort and ensures that local plans and neighbourhood plans can evolve in step.

Let us be clear, these amendments are not about diluting localism. On the contrary, they are about safeguarding it, ensuring a coherent planning pyramid that does not weaken distinctiveness but strengthens trust in the system and ensures that local voices are heard within a coherent framework where national, strategic, local and neighbourhood priorities reinforce rather than contradict each other. That, I submit, is the only way that we can achieve genuine consistency in housing delivery, infrastructure planning and sustainable development while preserving the vital principle of local voice and local choice. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 150ZB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, which he has very helpfully introduced, takes us into the question of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development plans. My amendments in this group—Amendments 154, 161 and 163—all relate to neighbourhood plans, plus one additional issue, which I will raise in a moment.

We are in the territory of revisiting questions which we debated during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Amendment 154 relates to what is presently in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act at Section 97 and Schedule 7. It is a part of Schedule 7. Noble Lords will recall that Schedule 7 has a wide range of planning and plan-making provisions. I think none of them has been brought into force.

With Amendment 154, I have extracted the provision within Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 that allowed for the production of neighbourhood priorities statements. Neighbourhood priorities statements would enable neighbourhood bodies—parishes, town councils, neighbourhood forums—to provide views on local matters such as development and nature. For the purposes of this Bill it would include, for example, environmental delivery plans as they emerge, the distribution and location of housing, facilities and infrastructure, all of which will be relevant to local plan making.

This is intended not to be a neighbourhood development plan as such but to enable neighbourhoods to comment on what are wider plan-making issues and to be a more accessible format for neighbourhood views on development and not require neighbourhoods necessarily to have incorporated their comments on issues in their neighbourhood development plan. It is to allow neighbourhoods to have their priorities stated in relation to the wider development issues. Neighbourhood priorities statements would not, for example, be subject to independent examination or require a local referendum. They would be a means for neighbourhoods to engage with the spatial development strategy and local plan making and the processes involved. They would potentially ensure an overall increase in the engagement of neighbourhoods with plan making.

I keep coming back to the central importance of the plan-making process. We are all, in our various guises, as councillors, council leaders and Members of Parliament, disappointed—and often find it incredibly frustrating—that so many individuals, and sometimes even parishes and communities, have not engaged thoroughly with the plan-making process but subsequently wish to object to what development proposals are brought forward consistent and in accordance with the development plan.

This is an important opportunity to have neighbourhood priorities statements. It is also thoroughly consistent with emerging government policy. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill presently in the other place, in Clause 58, provides:

“Local authorities in England must make appropriate arrangements to secure the effective governance”


of a neighbourhood area. That Bill provides for a structure of governance for neighbourhoods It gives us no detail on what functions may be conferred on such neighbourhood government structures. This amendment would positively equip the forthcoming English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill with a very clear function for such neighbourhood governance to provide such a key function. I commend it to Ministers as consistent with their emerging policies in support of neighbourhood governance. They can start to fill in the detail of what neighbourhood governance can achieve.

Amendments 161 and 163 relate to the provisions in Sections 98 and 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Those sections have also not been brought into force. Section 98 had the effect of providing detail about the content of a neighbourhood development plan. Some noble Lords who follow these matters about development plans will be aware that the legislation as it stands at the moment, which is essentially Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, includes processes around the development of a neighbourhood development plan but no information about the content of a neighbourhood development plan.

My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on the Front Bench will recall taking these measures through the House. The purpose was a very clear one, which was largely endorsed—that it would be extremely helpful to parishes, town councils and the like, when they are preparing a development plan, to know what content it should provide for. I will not go through it in detail, but it principally includes the amount, type and location of development, related land use, infrastructure requirements, the need for affordable housing and the importance of reflecting on design. These are all considerations which in our debates on this Bill we have determined are very important. This provision would allow the neighbourhood development plan to contribute to exactly these issues.

Amendment 163 is about bringing Sections 98 and 100 of the levelling-up Act into force. My Amendment 161 would amend Section 100 to make it consistent with this Bill by including powers to require assistance with spatial development strategies and neighbourhood development plans when plan-making.

14:00

We will return to the question of Section 100. It is important that, through this Bill, we bring into force a provision intended to replace the old duty to co-operate, which has disappeared. A central part of the process of enabling plan-making and neighbourhood development plans to be successful is that the authorities making plans should be able to seek the assistance of other authorities and public bodies. I hope that Ministers see the benefit of that.

These amendments would not be necessary if Ministers said that they were going to proceed to bring into force Sections 98 and 100 of the levelling-up Act. I cannot understand why they have not brought Section 100 into force, as it is an essential part of assisting with the plan-making process.

My final point is on Section 98(3) which, if brought into force, would also assist with the point that my noble friend Lord Banner will move on to discuss—the consistency of neighbourhood development plan-making with national policy. That subsection provides that neighbourhood development plans must be consistent with national development management policies, which, as the Minister kindly told us, are expected to be published for consultation before the end of this year.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 167, which stands in my name. It would require future neighbourhood plans to be consistent with national planning policy, in particular the National Planning Policy Framework. Neighbourhood plans, once made, form part of the statutory development plan in accordance with which planning decisions must be made, unless there are other material considerations indicating to the contrary.

Typically, for their first five years, neighbourhood plans attract the protection of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Even if the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies, the proposed development is consistent with the NPPF and there is a lack of a five-year housing land supply, a development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan will fail to get permission, so they carry real force in the plan-making and development control system. The problem with this is that, under the so-called basic conditions against which new neighbourhood plans are examined, a neighbourhood plan has only to have regard to national policy, not be consistent with it. There is a world of difference between the two. I am sure that the Minister will have regard to everything that we say in this debate, but I dare say that not everything in her response will be consistent with it. There is a world of difference.

Neighbourhood plans of course have a role to play in what my noble friend Lord Jamieson called the “pyramid” of planning policy, in giving effect to national and district policy, but they should not be able to undermine it—yet that can happen currently. From my experience at the coalface of planning decision-making, as an advocate in planning proceedings, I know that happens with real regularity. For example, a neighbourhood plan can have regard to NPPF policies on greenfield development but then impose more restrictive criteria, making it harder than national policy envisages for developers to get permission on greenfield sites. Neighbourhood plans can self-impose a housing requirement for their area that is not consistent with the NPPF’s standard method for assessing local housing need, thereby downplaying local needs within their area and stifling necessary growth.

With the greater direction on planning policy from central government under this Government—something with which I have more sympathy than perhaps some other colleagues on this side of the House—the risk of neighbourhood plans undermining national policy is even greater. This tends, in my experience, to be particularly prevalent in those areas where parish councils or other neighbourhood planning authorities are well resourced: areas which are wealthy, where the affordability gap is perhaps greatest and where the need for new affordable homes is particularly severe. It is in those kinds of areas where neighbourhood plans tend to have the most deleterious effect on delivering necessary growth.

My Amendment 167 would eliminate this issue by putting neighbourhood plans in their proper place in the hierarchy of planning policy—not letting the tail wag the dog, as so often happens. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley that bringing Section 98(3) of LURA into effect would also help in relation to national development management policies, but that would still leave a lacuna in relation to the NPPF. I urge the Government to consider this proposal very carefully. I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Jamieson on his Amendments 150ZA and 150ZB.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 185M, which proposes a vital duty to ensure due consideration of neighbourhood plans. I am delighted that, in discussions on the Bill, we are spending time considering the importance of neighbourhood plans, because they represent the heart and soul of local communities’ aspirations for their areas. They are often painstakingly developed by local people, often without much in the way of expert advice, and the plans reflect the needs, the character and the priorities they want for their areas. However, without adequate statutory backing, these plans risk being marginalised by larger-scale development decisions.

If adopted, Amendment 185M would achieve two important outcomes. The first would be that a planning authority, including the Secretary of State, would have to give due consideration to any neighbourhood plan or, indeed, any draft neighbourhood plan when making a decision on an application for planning consent. If that happens, the voices of local residents, as expressed through their neighbourhood plans, will not just be there but be factored into major development decisions. Maybe that is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and others in this group of amendments.

The other outcome of the amendment would be that the Secretary of State would permit a variation to a neighbourhood plan only if the variation were clearly justifiable and unlikely to compromise the overall intention of the neighbourhood plan that has been proposed in a clear manner. The amendment would safeguard the integrity of neighbourhood plans, preventing arbitrary or poorly considered alterations that could undermine their community-driven objectives.

I suppose that, in the end, it depends how we look at planning. We have had two analogies today: a planning hierarchy from the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a pyramid from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and I wonder whether using those images makes us think that the important bit is the apex. I would use a different analogy: our road system. The big NPPF, strategic plans and local plans are like major roads and motorways, but what gets us from one place to another are local lanes and byways—and that is the neighbourhood plans. Those are the ones that matter to people. Once we start thinking of pyramids and hierarchies, I think we tend to think that the top of the pyramid is the important bit, but actually it is the foundations. I have probably said what I need to say about that.

I am in broad agreement with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We went through all of them during the passage of the Levelling-up and Whatever Bill, now an Act. It is important that public bodies are made to assist with plan-making. If you do not, where does that end? The issue that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is trying to get us to think about is that frequently, in my experience, local people engage in planning only when it comes to a practical application on the table for a planning decision on a housing site, a commercial development or whatever it is.

Unfortunately, my starting point is that as a local councillor I often have to say to people that a housing site is already in the local plan and therefore the principle of development has been determined. Often, they will say, “Well, where was our say in this?” I will go through what I and others tried to engage with them and let them know what the proposals were. The difficulty that people often find is that this is a theoretical plan at a strategic level with great big sort of proposals for transport infrastructure, commercial development or housing. It is theoretical, as is local planning, even when it is allocation of sites. People often struggle to engage at that level. In this era of thinking about the creation of strategic planning and local authority local plans, we need to think very carefully about how that information is transmitted to the public.

Amendments in an earlier group on this Bill, probably two or three days ago, were about digital modelling. I think that would bring to life for people land-use planning and the allocation of sites. So that is my only difficulty with the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

The collective impact of all these amendments would create a more integrated and responsive planning system. If we want to put local communities at the heart of engaging with and taking part in responsible decision-making about what happens where they live, neighbourhood planning must be at the heart of that, because it enables proper democratic participation in making decisions about their area for their future. I hope that the Minister will give that a positive nod.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group concern the interaction between spatial development strategies, local plans and the neighbourhood planning system. I absolutely take the point that this must be a coherent system. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the scars on our backs from local plan delivery, we in Stevenage found ourselves in the crazy situation of having had three years of consultation on our local plan and a three-week public inquiry, which is quite unusual, and then having the plan held up for 452 days on a holding direction. That is exactly the kind of thing we are talking about; we have to get over these delays and glitches in the system.

14:15

Amendments 150ZA and 150ZB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, seek to ensure that local plans and neighbourhood plans that are prepared once the spatial development strategy is in place are consistent with the SDS. More significantly, the amendments also propose that any local plan that is already under production and has reached at least regulation 18 consultation stage, or a neighbourhood plan produced within one year of an SDS, does not have to be consistent with the SDS.

We have been clear that we expect local plans to be consistent with spatial development strategies. First, under provisions already contained in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and due to be commenced with the start of the new local plan-making system, local plans will already have to be in general conformity with the relevant SDS. These provisions mirror provisions in relation to the existing plan-making system in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Neighbourhood plans have to be in general conformity with strategic policies in the development plan, including policies in any adopted spatial development strategy.

Secondly, allowing a provision that a draft local plan that has reached regulation 18 stage—which is a relatively early stage in the local plan process—does not need to be consistent with an SDS could significantly weaken the value of producing the SDS, given the time it would then take to produce the next local plan to be consistent with the SDS.

Thirdly, having different plans potentially in conflict can serve only to reduce clarity for those proposing development and preparing, commenting on or determining planning applications, especially if those plans have all been produced in the recent past, as these amendments would allow. Fourthly, there is established planning practice guidance that provides useful guidance for the preparation of neighbourhood plans where a local plan is emerging at the same time. This advises that plan-making bodies should take a proactive and positive approach, sharing evidence and working collaboratively to minimise any policy conflicts and produce complementary plans. We expect the same approach to be taken where SDSs are being prepared at similar times.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am just seeking clarity. As the Minister knows, many of us in local government bear the scars from changes. The implication of her response is that, in practical terms, someone would not be going to regulation 18 stage in a local plan until they were very clear about what the spatial development strategy was going to be. That potentially means that you end up having a cascade of plans that are entirely dependent on the spatial development strategy, and that will delay local plans and, potentially, neighbourhood plans.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I made it clear that, as an SDS is in preparation, the evidence base and policies being used will become apparent. It is the collaboration between the different elements of the plan-making process that is critical here. Suggesting that we might hold up the provision of a plan is not correct. Regulation 18 stage is a quite an early stage and we do not want to weaken the production of the SDS, given the time it would take to produce the next local plan to be consistent with the SDS. So the evidence for the SDS will be very clear and, if there is good collaboration between all parts of the system, they should not need to wait for the SDS to be finalised even before or after they get to regulation 18 stage. I hope that is clear. If the noble Lord wants to talk about that some more, I am happy to do so.

Amendment 154, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would create a power for neighbourhood planning groups to produce neighbourhood priority statements. As the noble Lord knows, provision for these was one of many measures first included in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. We are mindful of the scale of reform to the planning system with which we are asking local authorities to engage. Later in the year, we intend to set out the detail of our reforms to the system of local plans, and we are wary of introducing further complexity into the new system before it has been allowed to become established. If we were to do so, we would risk undermining both the local plan reforms and the neighbourhood priorities statements, with overstretched planning authorities potentially failing to give statements the consideration they would deserve. For this reason, the Government’s current priority for the neighbourhood planning system is maintaining the existing rights for communities in the new context of strategic and reformed local plans—that is what I was talking about just now. We will consider whether there is a need for reform to neighbourhood planning, including whether to commence the relevant provisions in Schedule 7 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, once our wider reforms have taken effect.

Amendments 161 and 163 propose to amend the power to require assistance with certain plan-making in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and to commence the power in Section 98 which makes provision regarding the contents of neighbourhood plans. The noble Lord will, I hope, be pleased to hear that, so far as spatial development strategies are concerned, we are entirely in agreement. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Bill gives effect to his proposal to add spatial development strategies to the list of plans where assistance can be required.

When it comes to neighbourhood plans, I am afraid I must disappoint the noble Lord. This power was not designed for neighbourhood plans. It is intended to cover plan-making at far greater geographic scale and to obtain assistance on issues with which no voluntary neighbourhood planning group could be expected to grapple, no matter the extent of the assistance. His point about provisions for support to neighbourhood governance in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is noted, but I believe they are intended for a much wider remit than planning—no doubt we will debate what that might be during the course of that Bill. Neighbourhood plans are not supposed to be local plans in miniature, and they should not be treated as such.

As far as commencement of Sections 98 and 100 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are concerned, I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that these provisions will be commenced alongside our wider reforms, which we think will allow all the legislative changes to be viewed in the round, rather than having to be pieced together over time.

I turn next to Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am grateful to him, as always, for his constructive engagement and for all his amendments, including this one. He raised important concerns at Second Reading around the potential for neighbourhood plans to conflict with national policy, especially in relation to development on grey-belt land. I assure the Committee that neighbourhood plans cannot be used to prevent housing development and they cannot designate grey-belt land, nor can they unilaterally ignore national policy.

The test of “have regard to” is a well-established one—I hesitate to discuss this with a lawyer of such eminence as the noble Lord—across planning and beyond. It requires serious consideration of the policy and its objectives, and a rational basis for any departure. The starting point for any such test, including in neighbourhood planning, is that the regard should normally see the policy being followed. This point, among others, should be rigorously tested by the examiner during the public examination of a neighbourhood plan. We think this is the right balance. National policy is designed to be flexible. It must be, because local circumstances and needs vary widely, and so it is important that flexibility is maintained.

Amendment 185M, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to insert a requirement into the development consent order process for a Secretary of State to consider neighbourhood plans when making a decision on a nationally significant project, and to allow her to limit variations to neighbourhood plans—that should be “him”, sorry; this was obviously a note written before the change of the Secretary of State. While I agree it is essential that neighbourhood plans inform the Government’s decision-making on these projects, this amendment is not necessary to deliver that outcome.

As the Housing Minister said in the other place, the DCO process has been designed to enable timely decisions to be taken on nationally significant infrastructure projects, taking account of national need and priority, as well as local impacts. Neighbourhood plans give communities the ability to shape and direct development and the use of land at a local level, and play an important role in the planning system. For NSIP applications, national policy statements are the primary policy framework; they set out the need for NSIPs, guidance for promoters and assessment criteria, and guidance for decision-making.

The Planning Act 2008 process provides ample opportunities for input from local communities and local authorities, which I know is the noble Baroness’s key concern. As part of the decision-making process, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters considered both important and relevant; this can include matters of local significance. Local communities can make representations as part of the examination process, which can address whether proposals comply with or otherwise impact on issues of concern set out in relevant neighbourhood plans. Local authorities are fully engaged in the DCO process and are invited to submit local impact reports setting out the potential impacts of the project on the local area. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the local impact report in deciding an application.

As a matter of law, the Secretary of State must decide any application for a development consent order in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, except to the extent that any limited statutory exemption applies. Where there is no relevant national policy statement in effect, the Secretary of State must have regard to specified matters, including the local impact report and any other matters which the Secretary of State considers both important and relevant to the decision. These safeguards, which are already embedded in the statutory process, are sufficient to ensure that Secretaries of State take account of existing development plans, including neighbourhood plans, as appropriate. Where there is a relevant national policy statement in effect, this amendment could serve to frustrate the clear legal requirement on the Secretary of State to determine an application in accordance with the NPS.

This amendment would add another unnecessary requirement to the DCO process, which is contradictory to the Government’s ambitions of streamlining the planning system and the DCO decision-making process. Furthermore, the Secretary of State currently has no role in approving neighbourhood plans. It would therefore not be appropriate to enable him to make variations to them, as this is, rightly, a decision for communities. For these reasons, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I invite the Minister and her government colleagues to consider, if in my Amendment 167 a requirement for consistency with the NPPF is considered to be too onerous in relation to neighbourhood plans, a middle ground of general conformity. That language was used back in the days of regional spatial strategies; local development plans had to be in “general conformity” with RSSs. It is an established formula that has been considered by the courts already, and it is a stronger direction than “have regard to” but with at least a degree of more minor flex.

I fear that the Minister and her government colleagues overestimate the rigour of the neighbourhood plan examination process. This is not done by independent planning inspectors; it tends to be done by consultants who are in the business of examining neighbourhood plans, so they have a degree of incentive to sign them off. It tends not to involve an oral hearing, being done on paper, and tends to give neighbourhood planning authorities a very wide margin of appreciation in practice. It is a lot easier for neighbourhood plans to depart from national policy in practice than it may appear to be on paper. That is my experience, and I encourage the Government to consider that midway ground between now and Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. I will take it back and reply to him in writing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I start by thanking the Minister for her reply. I reiterate what my noble friend said earlier: it appears that she has had regard to our comments but her response is not consistent with our proposals, and hence I am disappointed with that response. We will take some time carefully to consider these areas of disagreement. Our focus will be on how the planning system can deliver the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised, and how these can be quality homes that people need and that are part of communities and serve them.

Amendments 154, 161 and 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, concern the benefits of a neighbourhood priority statement. I completely agree with his comments: producing a neighbourhood plan can be quite onerous, but coming up with a statement of priorities can be done much more readily and be very helpful.

14:30

We on these Benches continue to believe that the Government should move swiftly to commence large swathes of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023; that has long been a consistent position on this side of the House, and it remains so today. In fact, if many of those provisions had been brought to fruition, we may not have been debating so much in this Chamber over the past week, and in coming weeks. The Act took bold steps forward, covering a wide range of reforms from completion through to plan-making. Yet, despite that ambition, many of the core delivery mechanisms already on the statute book through the 2023 Act have not been commenced or only partially so. Increasingly, sector voices are critical of the Government for seeking to legislate through new planning Bills, rather than simply using the powers they already hold. Can the Minister set out clearly for the Committee which areas of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act the Government are willing to commence in this Parliament?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I wrote to the noble Lord during the course of a previous Bill to set out which provisions would be implemented, with rough dates for when they would come forward. I hope he has received that letter.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I will review my correspondence; I may have missed it, but I will double-check. I apologise if that is the case.

As I acknowledged earlier, Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Banner covers similar ground to my own amendments. We are grateful for my noble friend’s contribution and for his determination to drive forward housebuilding and ensure consistency across the planning system. We will continue to lean on his wisdom on these issues.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Through the mechanism of interrupting my noble friend, I say to the Minister that it would be jolly helpful to have sight of those details about when some of the commencement orders might be made. As my noble friend said, we could save ourselves an awful lot of trouble on Report if we knew that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before I comment on Amendment 185, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I will describe my view of a pyramid. A pyramid needs foundations and is built from the ground up; I tend to take that view rather than the helicopter view. The amendment requires that neighbourhood plans be given consideration in the local plan. That is a similar point to my own—that local plans should build on neighbourhood plans. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment 150ZA withdrawn.

Amendments 150ZB to 154 not moved.

Clause 52 agreed.

Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.

Amendment 157

Moved by

[Baroness Grender]

157: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Identification and protection of green belt(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act, a local planning authority must identify land within its area which it is necessary to protect from development.(2) It is necessary to protect land from development under subsection (1) if such protection would—(a) limit the expansion of large built-up areas;(b) prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;(c) preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;(d) encourage the development of previously-developed land in urban areas. (3) A local planning authority may designate as green belt any land identified under subsection (1) as necessary to protect, including undeveloped land within, and green wedges of land that extend into, built up areas.(4) A local planning authority must prevent any development of land designated as green belt under this section for a minimum period of 20 years starting on the day on which it is so designated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure that a local planning authority can identify land which it deems necessary to protect from development.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for putting her name to my Amendment 157. This amendment seeks to provide local planning authorities with a clear duty and power to protect land that plays a vital role in both shaping our environment and defining our communities. It would require councils to identify within two years the land most in need of protection and, crucially, would offer long-term certainty through its designation as green belt for the next 20 years. We on these Benches recognise that the Government have set out their plans for the green belt in the NPPF, but where we differ is on the freedom of local authorities to release green-belt land.

The character of our towns, villages and countryside is at stake. The green belt has long served as a safeguard against the unrestrained spread of our cities. Without it, the pressure for housing demand and speculative development risks turning neighbouring towns into single sprawling conurbations. Local distinctiveness would be lost, with cherished historic towns increasingly subsumed by continuous development. I welcome Amendment 215 in this group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, which sets out a similar objective. Preserving the gaps between towns helps maintain not only their character but their identity and community. The Minister—who is not in her place—fully understands this, given the protections around her own new town of Stevenage.

This amendment tries to set out a quid pro quo, in effect, for green-belt release, identifying new areas and protecting them over a long period. The amendment is pragmatic rather than dogmatic; it does not seek to prevent all new housing development—far from it—but would firmly direct growth to the right places by requiring authorities to prioritise the redevelopment of previously used urban land, as set out in proposed new subsection 2(d). It would strengthen the case for making full use of the extensive brownfield sites that lie dormant, particularly across our cities. Research from planning bodies such as the CPRE already shows that enough brownfield land exists right now for 1.2 million homes to be built. These sites are often in locations with existing infrastructure and transport. This promotes a principle of “brownfield first”, which we will continue to pursue throughout the progress of the Bill.

Moreover, the new clause proposed in this amendment would provide local communities with a degree of confidence and stability. One of the greatest frustrations, which we all experience when we knock on doors in communities, is the total uncertainty over whether some new development will take up valued local green spaces that will suddenly be lost to it, and that the infrastructure will be stretched beyond its means. By guaranteeing that the newly designated green belt is protected for at least two decades, people will know that, when their council takes action to protect land, the decision is secure over the long term and not subject to immediate challenge or reversal.

Finally, we must recognise that the objectives of housing delivery and environmental stewardship are not in conflict but entirely complementary. Directing resources towards brownfield regeneration helps us in that all-important effort to revitalise high streets, make better use of existing public transport and breathe new life into underused urban spaces, all while protecting the green lungs of our towns and cities. For all these reasons, this is a balanced and necessary amendment that would strengthen local control, ensure sustainable development and safeguard the green belt for today and tomorrow. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 215 is in my name, but I also support Amendment 157 and echo many of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. Amendment 215 would insert a new clause after Clause 106 that would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the National Planning Policy Framework. We have already discussed the importance of design and the impact that the built environment can have on health, productivity and sense of community cohesion, and that we need to put the right house in the right place. This clause is, in part, an extension of these arguments, in that it also looks to preserve the special character of individual villages, and of historic villages in particular. Be it medieval cottages or Victorian buildings, historic architecture reflects an era and the influences that shaped a village.

The UK is known for being a green and pleasant land, with villages and communities that are embedded in the landscape, hewn over centuries of rural life and livelihoods. Many people prefer to live and work in smaller communities closer to nature, often with a strong sense of being rooted in a community. Yet you need only read the debate in the other place to see many Members sharing examples of where some of their villages are no longer recognisable, having grown exponentially, often with housing insensitively tacked on. Members spoke of fields with as many houses as a developer can cram in, with no reference to local styles or consideration of infrastructure, rather than villages being developed organically in a way that existing residents feel comfortable with. Too often, this challenges the rural identity of an area and sounds a death knell for the green belt.

There are key elements that contribute to a village’s identity: architecture; cultural traditions and community narratives; and local pride, with traditions and festivals often reinforcing historical awareness as well as supporting heritage tourism. According to a report by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, heritage-led regeneration projects in UK villages have led to a 20% increase in local business activity, demonstrating the economic benefits of maintaining historical identity. Meanwhile, Historic England argues:

“Understanding the significance of places is vital”.


The risk that the Bill poses is of opening up development so much that we lose these gems or, in the worst-case scenario, that they become swallowed up in a styleless, depressing urban sprawl.

There is a significant threat to the authenticity and continuity of historical narratives that define UK villages and their identity. The Government have reported that between 2000 and 2017, more than 1,000 listed buildings were lost due to redevelopment. How could that have happened? It seems to happen all too easily. I argue that we should afford villages the same protection as towns under the NPPF, to ensure that they can retain their character and charm. This amendment would enable that and I hope it will gain the support of the Committee.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hodgson. At this point, I wish to thank the hard-working Whips’ Office, which, in this combination of amendments, has done an excellent job of tying together two things. I acknowledge just how much of a difficult job we have been giving it with Bills at the moment, with our alphabet soups. I think we should acknowledge that and say thank you.

Amendment 157, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, might have been written after my visit to Belper in the Amber Valley in Derbyshire in about 2012. This was a visit focused on trying to protect the green-belt patch of land between Belper and an adjoining village. The plan was to build across the lot and join up that village and Belper together. It was also for speculative development, as the noble Baroness said, and there was a lot of frustration about that. Then we went to lunch. We were sitting in the café and above us there was a lovely woodcut, a historic piece of art, of an old mill in town when it was in operation. I said to the local party, “What’s happening with that mill?”, and they said, “Oh, it’s derelict and we worry about it being burned down”. We were going to build on the green belt and destroy the village environment, and there was that obvious place where we could have been putting housing, right in the centre of town, where all the facilities were, where there was public transport, et cetera.

I am afraid that the Government often do not seem to understand the point of the green belt, and I think that is clear in the invention of the term “grey belt”. Yes, green belt can be to protect beautiful green spaces, nature, farming land, et cetera, but it is also to prevent communities—towns, cities and villages—sprawling and linking up together. The whole idea of “grey belt” really avoids understanding that.

14:45

This is where I come back to my Australian origins. I grew up in Sydney, a city that has no green belt, as Australian cities do not. The suburbs just sprawl and sprawl and that is terrible for a sense of community. It is a terrible place to live and, of course, terrible for nature. That is where I think Amendment 157 links to Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson.

Just yesterday, I was reading a forthcoming book from Derek Turner, previously known for Edge of England: Landfall in Lincolnshire. He is looking at the many centuries of history of the villages of England in particular; he is looking at the English shires. The history that has been written from Bede to Nennius to Geoffrey of Monmouth—I am going back many centuries here—is tied to a sense of place and if you just build over the lot of it, all of that is lost.

I think there is a temptation to say, “Oh well, this is a nice to have but look at how difficult things are and how much we need housing. We can’t afford to protect this”. But I want to make the case that we have, I think most people will agree, real problems in our society and our communities with disillusionment, anger, a sense of displacement, the distrust of politics, and the feeling that people do not have something to cling on to or belong to. Villages have the history, and if it has been half-forgotten, it can be recovered, but not if they are all built over and linked together and lose that identity.

Finally, sometimes I am afraid people use that kind of identity in a dangerous and harmful way to suggest that this is something closed-in and insular and, “We want to keep the outsiders out”. But research out this week on graves found in Updown in Kent and Worth Matravers in Dorset shows that people with west African origins were living in those villages in the 7th century, so villages have amazing, fascinating history. It is a global history, but it is attached to that sense of place and that can be really important to building communities, building identity and providing people with a sense of security and safety even in a difficult world.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and to support my noble friend Lady Hodgson in her Amendment 215. I will focus on villages.

The Committee will recall that the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the purposes of the green-belt policy, one of which—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, may not entirely agree that it is working—is to restrict the sprawl of large built-up areas. That essentially is where the London green belt really came from. Having absorbed Hampstead Heath, Dulwich Village and Wimbledon and so on, the question was: how far is this all going to go?

Let us accept that but what is interesting is that the NPPF goes on in paragraph 143(b) to say that another purpose is

“to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another”;

“towns” is the key word here. Separately, and I note it because otherwise the Minister would be on my case to refer to it, paragraph 150 says:

“If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt”.


I submit that that is essentially about the character of that village from landscape and related points of view, rather than anything to do with its relationship to any other settlement, or its history.

We tend to focus on the National Planning Policy Framework, but we should bear in mind that it was followed in February this year by further guidance, which in three respects looked at those purposes and tried to categorise the contributions to the purposes in various respects. It is interesting that one of the three purposes is about urban sprawl. It says that

“villages should not be considered large built-up areas”,

which seems obvious, but the point is that the guidance selects villages to be excluded from this purpose. Under “Preventing neighbourhood towns merging”, it goes on to say “towns, not villages”. In the third purpose, relating to the setting of historic towns, it says:

“This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages”.


What have historic villages done to make themselves so unpopular from this point of view? Why are historic villages not important in the same way as historic towns—and, for that matter, historic cities?

Ministers, including the Minister responding to this debate, will not recall previous debates in which I was very supportive of green-belt reviews. We had a green-belt review in Cambridge and, if we had not had one nearly 20 years ago, we would not have the Cambridge Biomedical Campus that we have today—we gave up green-belt land. I declare an interest in that I was Member of Parliament there, so I had to represent both sides of the argument, and I am currently chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, so I have skin in that game too. Nearly 20 years ago, we gave up a significant part of the green belt to enable that to happen. Subsequently, a planning application came through for development to the west side of the Trumpington Road, which would have built on to Grantchester Meadows. We resisted that, because it was not necessary to take the development across the Trumpington Road and nor was it necessary for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The central point is that Cambridge would not be regarded as a large built-up area for this purpose, but it would have reached out and this would have meant the coalescence of Cambridge with Grantchester, a historic village. The same could apply to somewhere such as Bladon, in relation to Oxford.

This is about the coalescence of settlements and a recognition that the historic setting of a historic city, town or village should be protected. Can Ministers agree to continue to look at the definitions of towns and villages, and the way villages are being excluded from any protections, whereas towns are included? This is not an immaterial issue; it has been the subject of a number of appeals to inspectors and they have more or less said—I paraphrase—“Okay, this is a village. It is not a town and therefore it does not have protection”. There are circumstances in which villages should have protection; they have an openness of character and contribute to the green belt for landscape purposes, but in specific instances the nature of that village as a settlement should be recognised in relation to its historic role.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for raising this important issue of village and specific land protection.

We fully appreciate the intention behind seeking to make better use of underused land by the Government, but concerns remain about the potential impact of such changes on the wider countryside and, crucially, on the identity of our villages. Although this matter may not directly be in scope of the Bill, it clearly interacts with it, and I hope Ministers will continue to reflect very carefully on the balance between flexibility in planning and long-standing protections afforded to rural communities.

In particular, I draw attention to Amendment 215, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. This is an important amendment, which states:

“Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate”


to those afforded to towns. I will not go into an explanation, because that has been given clearly and concisely by my noble friend Lord Lansley. However, it is important specifically in relation to preventing villages merging into one another, and in preserving the setting and special characteristic of many of our historic villages, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

We must ensure that village identity is properly protected. Rural communities are not simply pockets of houses; they are places with history, distinctiveness and a character that contributes immeasurably to our national heritage, and to the lives of the people who live there. This is a firmly held view on these Benches. I shall not detain your Lordships’ House by rehearsing our manifesto, but we will continue to stand up for the green belt and for all our villages.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to an interesting debate. As someone who lives in a small village in the north-east of England, I found it really interesting. I am obviously concerned for personal reasons about saving the green belt and looking after historic buildings. When I look out of the window, I can see a grade 1 listed church, so I know the importance of looking after these buildings.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hodgson, for their amendments, which arise, I suspect, as much from our revision of green-belt policy in the National Planning Policy Framework as from the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we published the updated framework last December. The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least by checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another.

Amendment 157 would require local authorities to identify land that contributes towards the green-belt purposes, and, once this land is designated as green belt, prevent any development of such land for a minimum of 20 years.

Planning policy is already clear on the ability of local authorities to establish green belts, and provides strong protections against development on green-belt land. As I have mentioned, our revised National Planning Policy Framework maintains these strong protections and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. The framework also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.

However, we know that brownfield land alone will never be enough to meet needs. This is why the revised framework continues to recognise the limited circumstances in which the use of some green-belt land for development may be justified and allow for the alteration of green-belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances.

A new requirement to prevent any development on designated green belt or alterations to green-belt boundaries for 20 years would limit authorities’ ability to respond to changing circumstances. It would override the discretion of the local community to discuss and consider whether existing green-belt land is still serving the purposes of green belt, and how and where to allow new homes or other essential development in sustainable locations.

Amendment 215 would require the issuing or updating of guidance for local planning authorities to restrict the development of villages. I make clear that neither our green-belt reforms nor the green-belt guidance make any change to the long-standing green-belt purposes, which include preventing the merging of towns and safeguarding the setting and special character of historic towns. Our guidance is clear that, when identifying grey belt, it is the contribution land makes to the relevant purposes that should be considered.

This reflects the fact that the fundamental aim of green-belt policy is, rightly, preventing urban sprawl, with an explicit focus on larger built-up areas and towns. The guidance does not remove appropriate and relevant green-belt protections from land around villages. It makes clear that any green-belt land, including land in or near villages, which contributes strongly to the relevant purposes should not be identified as grey belt.

15:00

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Will the planning policy be changed to include villages? At the moment the protection is for urban areas, not rural areas. If the Government continue to look at changing green belt to grey belt, surely there should be further protection for villages to stop them being coalesced together.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I hope to address that in a little bit—the noble Baroness may think that I will not, but that is the intention.

Local authorities continue to have various other ways to manage development in villages, and neither the Bill nor our policy reforms exclude the consideration of matters such as the character of a village or the scale and style of development, where relevant, in planning determinations. For instance, a local plan may designate local green space safe from inappropriate development or recognise a Defra-registered village green. Historic village character can also be preserved by using conservation area policies, neighbourhood planning, local listing of important buildings or local design guidance.

As planning policy already sets out adequate and appropriate protection from and support for development relating to villages, both inside and outside the green belt, I do not believe this amendment seeking to use green-belt protections to restrict development in villages is appropriate. Neither of these amendments is necessary to protect the green belt or the character of villages, and their statutory nature would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop sound strategies and make the decisions necessary to ensure new homes and jobs in the right places. I therefore ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I point out that, in the guidance from February, the Government said of purpose D on the setting of historic towns:

“This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages”.


One simple change that would make an enormous difference would be to recognise that that purpose should relate to historic villages as well. Many of our historic villages used to be historic towns. Lavenham was to all intents and purposes a town; you can go to the coast in Suffolk and see towns from the Middle Ages that now are small villages or, frankly, have virtually disappeared. The history is what should be important—not the present size of the settlement.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

From what I understand, the new regulations were to provide clarity on the green belt. As we have said, they are concerned with preventing urban sprawl, but they do not remove villages from the green belt or prevent land near villages being protected from development through green belt designation. Land around villages that makes a strong contribution to these purposes should not be identified as grey belt, for example. We think that we now have consistency with these regulations and that villages and their historic value and character are already protected in the planning process.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank Ministers for spending a great deal of time with us, especially the lengthy meeting this morning after the week we have all had. It is very much appreciated. The characterisation of this as a straitjacket on local authorities is a misreading of the wording of the amendment. It is entirely up to local authorities to identify these areas, and it would provide a level of certainty and trust for local people that they currently do not have, as they believe that future developments will lead to them losing beautiful areas of green belt.

We will want to revisit this issue when we come to Report and work behind the scenes with Ministers and civil servants to see whether we can find a better way make progress. We think it is incredibly important, and we have strong concerns about forcing local authorities to release green-belt land. That, in a way, is the critical issue here. That said, I thank all noble Peers for participating in this group, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 157 withdrawn.

Amendment 158

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

158: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning: duty of candourAfter section 8A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (The Homes and Communities Agency) insert—“8B Planning: duty of candour(1) A local planning authority who have the function of plan-making and determining applications for planning permission or permission in principle shall, in its interactions with applicants and those who make representations in connection to such applications, operate with a duty of candour.(2) A local planning authority operates with a duty of candour where—(a) in general, it acts in an open and transparent way with respect to its decision-making process in preparing and approving the development plan for its area;(b) in general, it acts in an open and transparent way with respect to its decision-making process in determining whether a planning application should be approved, and in making determinations in connection with the approvals process of such applications;(c) where it has made a decision, including with respect to the approval or otherwise of a planning application, the acceptance or otherwise of submissions or representations with respect to a planning application, or in connection with other activities inherent in the processing of a planning application, it outlines the reasoning for that decision in a way that is—(i) publicly accessible,(ii) written in clear language,(iii) consistent with the Nolan Principles on Standards in Public Life, and(iv) in accordance with national planning policy guidance.(3) An officer of a local planning authority shall, in their interactions with elected members of the authority, operate with a duty of candour in respect of their professional obligations.(4) An officer of a local planning authority operates with a duty of candour where they explain, clearly, accurately and in accessible language, what the rights and duties of the local planning authority are in respect of any application, potential application or development plan matter, regardless of the policies or preferences of the elected member concerned.””

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, if I may I will start by being grumpy in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others. This is Committee, and it is inappropriate to say, “Before the Minister sits down”. Saying that, as a Back-Bencher, suggests that allowing us to speak again is in some ways a concession on the part of the Minister. In Committee we can speak as many times as we like, whenever we like. That is a right which I do not see much exercised today, but we really should preserve it. On Report we are restricted; Committee is a free-for-all. It is important for getting to the bottom of things that we assert our right as Back-Benchers to speak when we wish to, and do not act as if this is a concession by the Government or Ministers.

Anyway, to turn to my amendment, my object here is to see whether we can make the planning system work better and improve the flow of national planning policy into decisions taken on the ground by imposing a duty of candour on the system. At the bottom end, the duty of candour is a strengthening of the power of officers because it removes from them the pressure to bend their advice to what they think will please the members of their authority, or maybe the public beyond that. It gives them a duty to be straightforward, honest and open about what things actually are. It is a considerable help to an official in dealing with members that they know they have to be clear—that they cannot say things just because they will get it in the neck from members if they do not say what members think they want.

Similarly, it helps members in their dealings with the public if the public know that the members are under a duty of candour to say things as they are, rather than trying to pretend that things are difficult or duck awkward decisions. In addition, operating the system in such a way that everybody knows that it has to be open and truthful, and that what is said is the way things are, is a great help to the public in dealing with change, which is naturally often unwelcome, and understanding how that fits into the development of the country as a whole.

Everybody I have talked to is committed to us having more houses. We want the Government to succeed in their ambitions, but it is often painful when it comes down to individual decisions, as the last group of amendments has demonstrated. There are always reasons not to do something. Having a system that we trust, and really understanding how it works, must be helpful, and having a duty of candour would make a difference to that. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for signing my Amendment 185. This amendment was originally in a separate group but, for the benefit of the Committee, I put it into what I would call the odds and sods group—I am not suggesting that any of the amendments are odd or, indeed, that any noble Lords are sods. Nevertheless, this is about addressing a particular situation where it is right that Members of Parliament should be calm, considered, important consultees on any nationally significant infrastructure projects that are proposed in their constituency. Many constituents fully expect Members of Parliament to have opinions on such matters. I appreciate that, at times, many Members of Parliament will say that they have no say on planning because it is a matter for the council. Well, of course, with NSIPs, it is different: it is a matter for the Secretary of State, who may delegate. It is therefore important that Members of Parliament have, in effect, an automatic right to participate in the examination.

The other thing—this came up for me when I used to be an MP—is that it is not always straightforward when modifications to NSIPs are made once consent has already been granted. That part of the process tends to just fly by with very little awareness but can be hugely significant. There is limited resource for MPs compared to, say, councillors, who can access their council officers in local authorities. For me, this would be a helpful check in both ways: first, being guaranteed not only to be notified of the original application and being able to speak at the various examinations but also to be made fully made of subsequent changes. I am very conscious that noble Lords may suggest that this is a barrier; it is not. It is about empowering the rights of local communities through the inclusion of their Member of Parliament.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 185J, which is on the GDPR, the general data protection regulation, which I am sure we all have to deal with on the internet every day when we make an inquiry on anything. It is around the issue of transparency versus data regulation. As we have talked about before, one of the key things about the planning system is that it has to have public confidence. One of the key ways that it has public confidence is through transparency. When that transparency disappears, it becomes a real issue. This is one of the conflicts that has come out between planning and GDPR.

It really came about in 2017, when Basildon Council—which I do not know well, I have to admit—received a £150,000 fine for disclosures that it made of personal information during a planning application. It was a major case, clearly, as reflected in the fine, but it was due to the failure of the council to redact certain personal information in that planning decision and procedure. The reaction to that from local authorities generally was to go into panic mode and decide that—quite rightly, as far as council tax payers were concerned—they did not want to be seen to be risking public money by making mistakes on procedural issues on planning and by contraventions of the GDPR.

Having done some research on this, as far as I can see, I think that this is the only example or incidence ever of a significant GDPR fine for planning on a local authority. However, I have come across in my local community people who have suffered from local authorities, in terms of planning, particularly in the area of enforcement, going through a process of overredaction or restricted disclosure—in fact, blanket non-disclosure on a number of occasions. This means that transparency is disappearing. People are often unable to find out what is happening in terms of enforcement cases, meaning that community confidence in that procedure and its outcomes is lost. There is also a definite inconsistency between local authorities in how this is applied.

15:15

This is a very important issue in terms of the planning procedures. I am trying to find out from the Government, in this probing amendment, how they intend to make sure that transparency is maintained, that there is a consistency and that councils once again are confident to be as transparent as possible. Clearly, it is important that certain personal details are redacted in terms of GDPR and how the Information Commissioner wishes this system to work. It should not get in the way in terms of procedures, understanding where individual cases have got to, particularly in enforcement, and in ensuring that we have consistency and less concern that there will be a liability on local authorities and council tax payers if this very extreme position is kept. I would like to hear from the Minister how this can be reconciled, so that we get that transparency and confidence back into the planning system, particularly in the enforcement space.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 185, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey.

Only about half a dozen noble Lords in the Committee at the moment have previously served as Members of Parliament. From my own experience, there is nothing more annoying as an MP than to find constituents writing to you about some planning development that you know nothing about when other stakeholders have been notified. The Member of Parliament must then ask the council, the Government or the agency what the issues are about before forming a view on it and either supporting the constituents’ concerns or not. Constituents simply do not understand why MPs are not already in the loop. That diminishes their status when it seems that every other Tom, Dick and Harry has been on the stakeholder consultation list.

I appreciate that this amendment is narrowly focused, with a much smaller range of stakeholders. However, the issue here, as my noble friend has said, concerns nationally significant infrastructure projects, where the Secretary of State is the decider. Therefore, while MPs might not be on the general planning consultation list, it would be reasonable for them to be on the list for these nationally significant infrastructure projects. The principle is the same. That is why I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 185SG, can I thank colleagues from all parties across the Committee who have supported me, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is in Birmingham today?

I declare my interests relating to this amendment. I am the chairman of the 360 Degree Society. This is a national social business that is applying the lessons learned from over 40 years of practical work in east London to community developments across the UK. Today, my colleagues and I are focusing on integrated development and placemaking, with business, public and social sector partners. The relevant business partners for this amendment include Barratt Redrow, Kier Group, Morgan Sindall Group, HLM Architects, the NHS and various local authorities.

This amendment is aimed at preparing the ground for and supporting the Secretary State for Health Wes Streeting’s 10-year plan for the future of the health service as he seeks to move services out of hospitals and into the community. It is my view, and that of my colleagues with many years of experience, that the health service needs to get upstream into the prevention agenda and move services out of expensive hospitals and into the community. This Planning and Infrastructure Bill is about not just housing but building truly joined-up places and cultures, where families want to live and where communities can thrive. It is my experience that the built environment and culture are profoundly connected. We really are the places that we live, work and play within.

Many of our inner cities and their fractured communities show the social costs of getting this wrong. This Bill and this amendment provide us with an opportunity to nudge the right direction of travel in a practical way, and it comes at a crucial time. So many previous attempts by government departments to encourage a more joined-up approach to development at a macro level have failed. I suggest that the opportunities to join the dots that make a real-world difference are in the micro, at place.

This amendment seeks both to support the Government’s desire to build 1.5 million homes and to ensure that we learn from the mistakes of the past. We need to create more joined-up services and communities and move beyond rhetoric into practice.

I could take noble Lords to so many places across the country where services are literally hiding behind their own fences and are not joined up, either physically at place or structurally in a co-ordinated operating culture. The main players barely know each other on the same street, yet they all work with the same families. This is an expensive disaster that continues to replicate. It needs to stop.

In new developments, we are still witnessing on the ground a fragmented health and community infrastructure. Not only are they not creating a sense of place but they are in danger of unintentionally repeating many of the same mistakes of large-scale housing developments of the past. We could be in the 1960s or 1970s: soulless housing estates, created by both the private and public sectors, that generate well-documented social and economic problems over time. Local communities need a soul and beating heart at their centre.

In the modern world, health is everybody’s business. It is no longer a matter for just the medical profession. The focus now rightly needs to be on the social determinants of health. We urgently need to build more joined-up social and health developments in local communities and neighbourhoods. In front of us is a real opportunity, as this Government commit themselves to building 1.5 million homes, to rethink the social, health and welfare infrastructure in these communities, and to bring together housing, health, education, welfare, and jobs and skills, truly encouraging innovation and more joined-up approaches.

Lots of research out there gives endless data on why all this makes sense; we just need to start doing it. One housing association’s social prescribing programme supported 277 people and reported a 90.8% change in their well-being. Mixed-use developments that blend residential, commercial, health and recreational spaces stimulate local economies by attracting businesses, creating jobs and prosperity. This research shows that the proximity of services encourages residents to shop and dine locally, creating a self-sustaining economic ecosystem. Siloed housing schemes are not only less effective but more expensive in the long run.

This amendment seeks to encourage closer working relationships between the public, private and social sectors so that, in this next major building phase, we actively encourage innovations, best practice and greater co-operation between these sectors. We cannot force people to work together, but we can actively encourage them to do so. We need to create learning-by-doing cultures across the country, which share best practice, as we set out on this new, exciting journey of housebuilding and infrastructure.

This amendment is a first attempt to find a form of words that encourages greater co-operation at place between the place-makers. The wording is not perfect and I am sure we can improve it, but it allows us to have a cross-party debate about the siloed machinery of the state that is not delivering the change that people want to see and experience. Very good people from different political parties have attempted, over the years, to mend these disconnects at departmental level. I have worked with many of them and this has proved really difficult to do. This amendment offers a simple, practical solution that encourages a direction of travel and a clear steer to practitioners and people of good will on the ground.

In my experience, what really counts when it comes to innovation and change is not diktats from government or more process and strategy, but transparent, joined-up, working relationships between partners involved on the ground. The siloed world of government is increasingly not fit for purpose and is daily hindering the very relationships we now need to bring together and help flourish.

The 360 Degree Society, which I help run, has a proven methodology that is enabling co-operation between major parties involved in place-making from the public, business and social sectors, and residents. There seems to be a consensus around what Wes Streeting is proposing for the future of the health service. We are at a moment where the players in local authorities, the NHS, the social and private sectors and housebuilders want to build a more joined-up world. We have all talked about joining up services and cultures; this amendment provides a practical next step on this journey.

Some of this is about ensuring that community infrastructure is an integrated part of large-scale developments and is created early on, rather than the last element to be built, but also that a much wider range of partners are involved in creating high-quality new places where people are healthy and can thrive and prosper. The 360 Degree Society, which I lead, has created a social value toolkit to explore the practicalities of how to do this. To take just one example, we suggest getting beyond the often confrontational, usually purely transactional approach between developers and local authorities and special interest groups to get to a place where there is a genuine commitment and endeavour to agree a shared vision for the place.

Our experience suggests that this is partly achieved by surprisingly straightforward changes, such as developing human relationships between key players and focusing on them. When we get to know someone, rather than just reading their papers and emails, it is surprising how often a way forward can be found. Relationships with the key players, rather than consulting and engaging absolutely everyone, are part of a way forward we suggest. The purpose of this amendment is to help create the appetite and desire to encourage colleagues to take this approach and encourage innovation in this space.

I was in east London recently, in a multi-million pound development. I was met by an African mother with two rather beautiful children. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent; the health centre is at one end of the estate, the community building at another, the nursery somewhere else and the school somewhere else. She described how her child was already picking up needles in the play area and she showed me a small video of two youths outside the housing association office jumping into a van and stealing the contents. The culture was already starting and I can imagine this mother already wondering—these estates need strong families —whether she was going to stay.

Let me briefly share with you a practical example of what success looks like in practice. My colleagues and I do not like papers; we tend to build practical examples with partners. In 2007, I was asked by Christine Gilbert, then CEO of Tower Hamlets Council, who went on to run Ofsted, to lead what became a multi-million pound development in Tower Hamlets, following a murder and considerable violence between two warring white and Bengali housing estates. The details of this development are in Hansard, because we debated it in the levelling-up Bill, but the basic points are: you had a failing school with a fence; next door, a failing health centre with a fence; attempts to build 600 homes that had spent £3 million on schemes, with not a flat built; and two warring communities, one Bengali and one white.

My colleagues and I spent time building relationships with local residents and with the local authority, the NHS and the housing association—top, middle and front line. We started with no investment and we have rebuilt a £40 million school; a £16 million health centre; 600 homes, with 200 for sale; and now a new primary school. In June, Professor Brian Cox and I did our 13th science summer school, and he led a masterclass at the end of the day; this school had involved 695 children and, at the end of the day, a group of them in a masterclass debated quantum physics—an extraordinary experience.

What were the lessons learned? First, it was not about structure but about people and relationships—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

Order!

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

I am just about to finish. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, told us on Tuesday that there is a rising tide in this space. My suggestion is that we all need to grasp the moment or we will lose it yet again. The foundation stones need to be laid now. Let us take the first step together. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the Committee for jumping ahead of him in speaking to my noble friend’s amendment. I had not clocked that he was due to speak and that it was his amendment. I apologise for my discourtesy.

15:30

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and I shall add a very brief footnote to what he has just said.

It of course makes sense for there to be co-operation and co-ordination between public authorities as they develop community infrastructure. Otherwise, as the noble Lord has just said, you get housing estates without the shops, schools and medical centres that are needed. A local plan would normally do this. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify which authorities do it best. It is some time since I was a Planning Minister, but it was certainly the case that some planning authorities were exemplary in how they led the planning system and others fell far behind. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify the leaders in the field, publish the best practice and invite local authorities to follow that best practice. That seems to me to be in everyone’s interest, because the whole planning system depends on high-quality, up-to-date local plans. The amendment is seeking to do that. If a new clause is a step too far for the Minister, perhaps it could be incorporated into the NPPF or other guidance.

I shall say a final word on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment about involving local MPs, which in some cases is linked to what I have just spoken about. Her amendment would simply add the local MP to the list of interested parties in a development that has national implications. It would not give them any additional rights; it would simply ensure that, if there is a development, one of the people who has to be notified is the local MP. My noble friend Lord Blencathra outlined the case very well. Any sensible developer would have involved the local MP at a much earlier stage, so I see this as a long stop, so that if for any reason the local MP has not been involved he is not at a loss when the local paper rings him up just before deadline asking him whether he has a view on what has just been proposed. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible amendment, and I hope the Minister is able to smile on it.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points on these amendments. They are a wee bit difficult to link up in some respects. I understand that most of them are about providing checks and balances within the system, or as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, framed it, more transparency.

I support the broad principle of these amendments, including the duty of candour, if we can refine that in the planning system. On Amendment 185SG, the key is getting public authorities and local authorities to work together. I support public authorities having a general principle for their schools, health authorities, hospitals or whatever, provided that it gives enough flexibility for local areas to make decisions, which might be different in a rural area from decisions in London. We need to make sure there is that flexibility.

Finally, we need to ensure that it does not delay the processes. Sometimes, if you put additional checks and balances in planning, local authorities will use them as an excuse for why there is a delay in a planning decision being taken at a much earlier stage. In broad principle, I support the basis of these amendments, but we need to make sure that they would not delay the processes.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I will make a few quick points in the absence of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made his own points very well, so I will not repeat them.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I imagine most MPs recognise that their local councils put all their planning applications online now, and a quick look online on a Friday afternoon by a researcher might find exactly what has gone up that week without the need for any change to legislation. But I understand how it feels when someone gets in touch with you and you do not know; I recognise her dilemma.

We wholeheartedly agree with the impassioned plea from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about consultation and communities. However, when things get as bad as the estate that he described, it has gone way beyond the need for planning to put it right. It sounded more as if it was heading towards the Bronx or similar, and in that sort of instance other processes have to kick in. I was tempted to add the rider, “Other consultants are also available for this work”—I thought he did a good advertising job there.

The amendment that I really want to turn to is Amendment 158, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I understand where he is coming from, but, when I read the amendment, I felt that the planning authorities actually do all those things and try to act appropriately. The whole list that he put in his amendment—I will not read it out again—is, in my experience, what they plan to do. I guess what he is getting at is that he has experience, as have I, of officers being leaned on—those are the words he used, but I would go so far as to say that sometimes they are bullied—by politicians into making decisions.

Thanks to the last Government’s work, carried on by this Government, we now have a lot more information about what is going on in planning committees—we have statistics and things that actually tell us what is going on. If you read the planning press, you see that it is clear which authorities, be it members or officers, are not functioning properly. There is help out there for dysfunctional councils in that regard. A council that will remain nameless was in that position and got a very poor peer review, but then at a council meeting all said, “We don’t agree with this poor peer review”. I guess the question then is what happens next when councils really are failing.

Officers are really good. The amendment makes it seem as if it is black and white, but planning officers understand the role of politicians in the planning procedure—they understand political will—and recognise that they have a legitimate role in what is happening in planning. I have had many a discussion—when I was a councillor, not a mayor—where I have said what residents feel, and the officers have said, “Well, you could say that, but…”. They are good at understanding that you have a role and want to help. They are professional. However, when discussing specific cases, officers make you realise that there is nuance. Interpreting a planning rule is not black and white but very grey. People might say, “It says the gardens have to be this big”, but the officer’s response might be, “The gardens are a bit smaller but do other things that are better and more than we expect, so we’re going to give it planning permission”. It is not simple; it is all a question of nuance and interpretation.

I am quite confident that the system should work if things are done as they already happen. My concern sometimes, when things are demonstrably going wrong or exposed to be so, is what happens next.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 158, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, sets out the principle that local planning authorities should operate under a duty of candour. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that many, if not most, local authorities operate very good planning services and do what I believe my noble friend is setting out.

However, I agree with my noble friend that there would be a benefit to this. I think it would support planning officers in their job, because they would not be so arm-twisted by others outside—and not just by councillors; I can think of some developers and others who do some arm-twisting at times. This matter is important. Communities need confidence that decisions that shape the character and future of their towns, villages and cities are taken in good faith and that the process is accessible, transparent and fair. The amendment makes a constructive contribution to this discussion.

On Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, as a councillor I agree—I think all of us ex-councillors here will agree—that we have frustrations as we know how it ought to be, but it is not. I remember having a very long conversation with people at my local hospital about some things we were seeking to do, asking why they could not move this, or do this or that. They basically said, “We would love to work with you and do it, but every Monday morning we get a call from the chief executive of the NHS and all he wants to know is about delayed transfers out of hospital”. Doing something that would fix a problem in six or 12 months’ time was not on the priority agenda.

This is a big issue with all public bodies: they all have their own priorities and all operate in silos, as has been so eloquently made clear. Placing a duty on public bodies and authorities, not only to follow best practice but to co-operate, could be very beneficial in coming up with better communities and better plans for our areas. This is a vital point. We need joined-up thinking, collaboration and co-ordination. They are not optional extras; they are fundamental. There needs to be some mechanism or tool that makes it very clear for those public bodies that they need to co-operate. I emphasise that sometimes it is the local authority that gets criticised when, in many instances—I would say the vast majority of them—it is about the inability to convene the whole public sector and quasi-public bodies together. Therefore, I am very supportive of the sentiments of this amendment.

Amendment 185J in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises another practical and sensible point. I appreciate it is a probing amendment, but the issue of GDPR is a crucial one within local government. Again, I can say from personal experience—my noble friend Lord Banner made a comment earlier about the precautionary principle—I find that officers generally have a precautionary principle and will move to the safest option. That is not necessarily the most transparent option. If there is clear guidance that gives them clarity about where that line is, that could be very helpful in enabling officers to do their job better and more transparently, while securing, quite rightly, the privacy of residents and the public.

I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling Amendment 185. There have been a number of comments on this. As set out in Section 102B of the Planning Act 2008, a person within category 1, if they are the owner, lessee, tenant—whatever the tenancy period—or occupier of the land concerned, whose property may be subject to compulsory purchase acquisition under a development consent order, is automatically deemed an interested party. They have notification rights and a statutory place in the examination of an application. The amendment would extend this category to include any Members of Parliament in whose constituency a proposed development is to take place.

I completely agree it is appropriate that MPs know what is going on within their constituencies. However, such a change would give them a formal role in the process rather than relying on access through public channels or discretion. It might alter how MPs engage with nationally significant infrastructure projects, including those that are more contentious. I can see the case and recognise the change in balance between local involvement and the national framework of planning. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position. Do they see merit in giving MPs a statutory role in this way? How does that sit with the strengthening of local voices within planning law?

In closing, I thank all noble Lords for raising important questions of candour, co-operation and transparency. These are not just procedural matters but go to the heart of how we deliver in this country—how we build trust with communities and ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments, and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Candour, co-operation and transparency are key issues in planning.

Amendment 158, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to impose a duty of candour on local planning authorities and their officers when carrying out planning functions. This Government completely support the principle of this amendment. It is important that local authorities and their officers act with candour when carrying out their duties. I hope that I can provide the noble Lord with assurance that this amendment is not needed.

15:45

The Government are committed to bringing forward the Hillsborough law, which will be introduced as a Bill into Parliament shortly. The Bill will introduce a professional duty of candour, requiring candour from all public authorities and their officials. Once the Bill has been introduced, there will be further details on how it will operate. In addition, in relation to planning, there are already provisions in planning law which encourage candour. For instance, there are special requirements when a local planning authority is considering its own applications for development. Planning regulations also require all decisions on planning applications to be published on planning registers, and for local planning authorities to clearly and precisely set out the reasons for these decisions. Therefore, we do not think further specific provisions are needed now.

The proposed new clause in Amendment 185, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks that Members of Parliament should be treated as category 1 persons under Section 102B of the Planning Act, thus automatically being treated as interested parties. We all recognise the vital role that Members of Parliament play in representing their constituents and engaging with nationally significant infrastructure projects. Their involvement in the DCO process is both welcome and encouraged. However, I would like to clarify the existing provisions for becoming an interested party. Under current legislation, any individual or organisation, including Members of Parliament, may submit a relevant representation during the designated period and thus become an interested party and have formal status in the examination process, allowing them to attend hearings, respond to Written Questions, and raise concerns about the impact of the project.

I turn to the potential legal implications of the amendment. Category 1 persons are defined in legislation as those with a direct interest in land, including owners, lessees, tenants and occupiers. The need for defining persons within category 1 is to ensure that those with a legal or physical stake in the land affected by a proposed development are properly notified. This, therefore, is a separate provision within the Act which seeks to protect the interests of those persons whose land could be impacted by the projects through proposed compulsory acquisition and ensure that they are not prejudiced from being able to engage with the examination. Including relevant Members of Parliament in this category could introduce ambiguity and inconsistency into the statutory framework. It could risk conflating the role of elected representatives with that of landowners and occupiers, potentially undermining the clarity and coherence of the legislation. I respectfully reassure the Committee that the Planning Act provides sufficient and straightforward provision which allows a Member of Parliament to register as an interested party and meaningfully engage in applications which impact on their constituency.

Amendment 185J seeks to probe the issue of balancing the need for transparency in the planning system with the need for data protection and security. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling this amendment, because it emphasises that it is important to get this balance right. I hope to reassure the noble Lord that planning guidance is already available, which takes account of the need to balance transparency with the principles of data protection. We recognise that transparency about planning decisions is critical, but it is also important that sensitive personal data is protected.

When the GDPR framework was introduced, with its enhanced protections, there was some uncertainty among local planning authorities about how it should apply to their planning functions. That is why in 2021 the Government funded and supported the Planning Advisory Service to prepare and publish comprehensive guidance to local planning authorities setting out how to comply with GDPR when carrying out their planning responsibilities. This guidance covers a range of activities, including decision-making on planning applications, making local plans and exercising enforcement. We do not think there needs to be further statutory guidance from the Secretary of State.

Amendment 185SG would require authorities to follow best practice guidance, published by the Secretary of State, for the development of community infrastructure. It would also require authorities to publish an annual report assessing their compliance with the guidance. This Government recognise how critical it is that new homes are accompanied by supporting infrastructure. The NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner.

Contributions from developers, secured through Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy, play an important role in helping to deliver the local infrastructure required to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening the system. As I have mentioned previously, it is already the case, as set out in the NPPF, that plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other local infrastructure.

Plan-makers should collaborate with the local community, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders to develop those policies. Local plans are subject to public examination by an independent inspector to determine whether the local plan is sound and can be adopted. Local authorities can only adopt a plan that is sound, and part of the soundness test is that a plan should be consistent with national policy and be supported by evidence. The views of local people are required to be taken into account as part of the planning process. If the inspector is not satisfied that the plan meets the soundness test, it cannot be adopted by the local authority.

The new system for plan-making in England, which we intend to start rolling out by the end of this year, is designed to improve the quality and quantity of engagement between local authorities and their communities, infrastructure providers and statutory bodies. New early engagement and timetable requirements will make it easier for interested parties to help shape plans from the very start, and to know when their input will be sought.

As part of reforms to the local plan-making system, MHCLG is considering broadening the range of organisations prescribed as a “specific consultation body”, and to prescribe key infrastructure providers under the new “requirement to assist”. Being prescribed under these duties would see organisations recognised as key stakeholders in shaping plans, ensuring that their input is sought at key points and taken into account in how plans are developed and evidenced.

Following our recent response to the previous Government’s consultation on the implementation of plan-making reforms, we are currently undertaking further targeted engagement with those bodies we intend to prescribe and will set out further details in due course. This will include additional information on the process around the “requirement to assist”, which will enable LPAs formally to request support from the prescribed organisations.

MHCLG provides funding to the Planning Advisory Service to deliver a targeted support programme to help local authorities across England strengthen their approach to infrastructure planning and the governance of developer contributions. That includes assisting local planning authorities in creating effective infrastructure delivery plans through designing model IDPs that guide authorities in outlining their strategies for delivering local infrastructure and allocating developer contributions, alongside other funding sources to support the development of their area.

I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply.

The common theme between the amendments is empowering officials to do their job well. I will pick up an example from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. If an official in the local hospital is only looking up the line to someone in the health department, it is very hard for them to take into account the needs of other aspects of the community.

If there is something in law or secondary legislation—whatever it is, I look forward to seeing it—that the Government produce that says, “You must consult, you must talk to these people and you must take them into account”, that empowers the official to do so. It does not make it happen, but it sets out a structure where we can communicate properly between silos. We can get things done as a community and not in little bits.

I am sure that we can all think of examples of where things would have been done much better if the community had been involved. In fact, we do not need to look much further than our own front door. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has a lot of experience with construction, but when I took one of my friends who is in the industry through the front door and asked him how much he thought it cost, he was at about a 50th of what it was. We were not involved; the community was not consulted. This has been done to us; we were not part of that decision. The same applies to our “HMP Westminster”-style enclosure. I therefore really encourage the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, to work with my noble friends Lord Hayward and Lord Forsyth to see whether we can get our own mechanisms to be rather better than they are.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I have commented on the door and had conversations with various people around the House, which was very fascinating as a parable of this problem.

Christine Gilbert was a very good local authority leader who understood the limitations of the state and understood that just the processes and systems alone would not get us there. Something else needed to happen in which the local authority, the NHS and the normal players were obviously key partners. It was about the people and relationships; the machinery was not going to get us there, and she understood that as a very capable leader.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I also felt that the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was good, but I would be grateful if he could send him and us a link to the guidance that he referred to so that we can check through it and understand how it works before Report. In the case of my amendment, I await the Hillsborough law. If it can do what Amendment 158 is setting out to do and a lot more across government, it will make a huge contribution. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 158 withdrawn.

Amendments 159 to 163 not moved.

Amendment 164

Moved by

[Baroness Parminter]

164: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Local planning authority duty: statutory environment and climate change targetsIn the exercise of any of its planning or development functions, a local planning authority must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to Environment Act and Climate Change Act targets.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for supporting me in this amendment, which would give a statutory duty to local authorities to promote climate change and nature recovery targets. It would specifically ensure that planning decisions actively supported climate adaptation, mitigation and nature recovery, thereby helping us to deliver our legally binding targets for net zero and the restoration of biodiversity.

We know that local authorities play a fundamentally important role in meeting our net-zero and nature restoration targets, because planning decisions fundamentally determine where infrastructure goes. We have to think not just about houses but about transport, which is responsible for half of our climate change emissions in the UK. Our land use determines whether we are providing the necessary homes for nature.

It is not just us making this case: the Climate Change Committee in its report to Parliament last year argued strongly that net-zero objectives should be consistently prioritised in planning decisions. Many businesses have been arguing for some time for a statutory duty in this regard, in order to provide policy certainty and encourage the necessary investment in net-zero and nature recovery objectives.

When the Government produced its Statement on the climate and nature crisis on 14 July, Ed Miliband said that

“the actions we need are not just about Government, we are also determined to help communities take climate and nature action in their own area … supporting mayors and local government to accelerate action”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/25; col. 31.] 

This amendment would do just that.

16:00

When this issue was debated in the Commons, the Minister’s response was that the Government could not see quite what extra benefit this amendment would deliver. I appreciate that the NERC Act and the strengthened biodiversity duty, which many Members of this House were responsible for strengthening during proceedings on the Environment Act in 2021, do give local authorities responsibilities for biodiversity, but there is no similar duty for climate change and adaptation. Equally, the Minister went on to claim that there have been significant national initiatives, including the Local Authority Climate Service, which provides a free meteorological service to help local authorities plot climate issues. But frankly, given the scale of the challenge we are talking about and that 300 of our local authorities have declared a climate emergency, it is probably fair to say that those initiatives on their own really do not cut the mustard. What is required, if we are going to seriously tackle our climate goals and deliver the homes for nature that we need, is to give local authorities this statutory duty. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 164 from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who has laid out the case very clearly. Local planning authorities are vital if the Government and we as a nation are going to achieve the legally binding targets and programmes for climate, environment and biodiversity listed in the amendment. We are likely to have this debate on multiple occasions over the next few months and years. Of course, we have already gone through this process of debating why major bodies—new bodies in legislation or bodies whose legislation is being changed—should have the opportunity of a statutory duty to promote these issues.

We had some success in this House in giving such a duty to the Crown Estate. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, played a sterling role there, and although it was not actually adopted in the legislation, it was included in the guidance to the Crown Estate. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, had he been in his place, would have been reminding the Committee that he, of course, has a Private Member’s Bill that would do the job in a sort of bulk-buy fashion and give a whole list of the key implementation public authorities a similar duty in one fell swoop. It would be absolutely the right way forward if that private legislation were adopted by the Government and put forward as a government Bill, because that is the most efficient way of doing it. Otherwise, noble Lords are going to have to listen to the likes of me, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, bang on about this sequentially as each body comes forward, until such time as we have debated the whole lot.

So, I commend this amendment and issue a stern address to the Government that accepting the Krebs Private Member’s Bill would be a splendid shortcut to the right destination.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Deben (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for that short but important debate. Climate change affects everybody. Like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I live in a rural area and when taking the dog out for a walk during the summer I could see that the crops were not what they should be. We know this affects everybody in their everyday lives. It is something that this Government, with our net zero policies, et cetera, take very seriously.

Amendment 164, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would place a statutory duty on local authorities to contribute to targets set out under the Environment Act and Climate Change Act and to the programme for adaptation to climate change under the Climate Change Act, and achieve targets set out under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.

We already have existing tools and duties that support efforts to contribute towards targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, strengthened under the Environment Act, so there is already a legal requirement. The latter Act requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy, as well as to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England. Many local authorities already have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, drive clean growth, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, and it is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a statutory duty would bring.

16:15

On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, a number of which are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October 2024, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services. The Government provide a range of net zero support to local authorities. This includes Great British Energy, the UK’s new, independent energy company, which will provide funding and support to local government, community energy groups, government departments and devolved Governments to help increase the rollout of renewable energy projects.

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

[Lord Deben (Con)]

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

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

To be clear, my point was about the clarity of those definitions and whether they could be somewhat better defined, referring in particular to “achievement of sustainable development” and “mitigation of climate change”. It was not about climate change in general, but rather our need for clarity on the definitions in those clauses, because they are fairly broad-brush.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We believe that what is already there is specific and offers clarity. It is fundamental to the planning regime that we want to bring in. If the noble Lord wants, I can write to him in greater detail about what is on offer here.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister at least for the consistency of his reply with that given in the Commons. I thank all other noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the point well: time is not on our side, and local authorities have a critical part to play in meeting our net-zero targets. The Government cannot do it on their own and we as individuals wanting to drive electric cars cannot do it if local authorities have not put in place plug points or if the houses are in the wrong places. They are pivotal. At some point, you have to start creating the overall conditions to show that the Government and local government are acting in partnership to achieve the legally binding targets which this Government are signed up to and which I am sure they wish to keep to.

To pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, what will this Government do if the big local authorities start refusing to take these responsibilities seriously? They will have no chance of getting to the targets that they want to achieve and which this country needs unless they start biting the bullet now and putting some target statutory duties in, as the previous Government gave local authorities statutory duties to promote growth. Without that, they will not get there. I ask them urgently to think again on this. I suspect that we may well return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 164 withdrawn.

Amendment 165

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

165: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Preservation of playing fields and pitches(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to— (a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development, or(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing fields” and “playing pitches” have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to one of those wonderful issues where we have something in place that works, which this Bill will remove, and that is the protection provided by Sport England for playing fields and recreational facilities. I am in danger of making a very short speech or a very long one and am trying to draw a line down the middle.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The former, please.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Clearly, my noble friend has heard me often enough.

The best playing fields are in nice, urban environments where people can get to them. Effectively, you have a greenfield site, often owned by a cash-strapped local authority or an independent school that has been increasingly under pressure to improve exam results rather than develop the whole picture. The playing field owners say, “Wouldn’t it be better if we had a slightly better new gym court and got rid of the field?” or “Nobody else is playing on the playing field because we haven’t maintained it”; they sell it off and get rid of it. Who cares? The people who play the sport do and the people you want to play the sport should.

What is sport? It is the ultimate community activity with health benefits, and public playing fields are essential for those in grass-roots sport to be able to address this. Go to any successful sports club, especially for sports such as football, rugby, and cricket, and it will have started on a public playing field. That is where you start. Even with these property-owning sports—rugby and cricket are the classic examples—where you are encouraged to take over, manage and own your own ground, you start somewhere else and develop on from it. You can expand your playing numbers by taking on smaller pitches for your junior teams by using them. It is an integrated part of it. If you do not have that capacity, the nature of the club will be threatened. So we have something which adds to it, but it is potentially a cash cow for some other groups and is sitting there in the right place, very tempting for any housing plan.

The body that has been protecting such places, Sport England, is no longer a consultee. That is what it is thinking and feeling. If we are wrong about that, I would be very grateful to hear it when whichever Minister replies, and your Lordships will not be hearing from me again. If that is not the case, there is something to be answered here.

My amendment would put in another duty; of course, it is Committee and this is just the first go, but I hope that the Government will tell me here if there is another solution to this—if they cannot tell me exactly at this stage, I will make myself available for any meetings to make sure that I know and can tell the rest of the House. If something positive is going to happen there, I will be more than grateful to go away and spread the word. If the Government are not going to do something like this and will just leave it to a general duty, they are basically guaranteeing losses, and possibly catastrophic losses. Unless you understand this and your current drive is for something else, you will ignore it, because we all do. What is your primary objective? We go there. I hope that the Government will tell me something positive and supportive with regard to this group.

We should also remember that you are supporting voluntary groups which do this at very little cost to the state at the moment. That culture of gathering together, paying for the use of the pitch and running up has to have a little space to grow. If we remove that, we will stifle the whole thing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has another amendment down here; I think we all know enough not to say exactly what her amendments mean, but the idea of play also comes in and tags on there. Such play is not as formalised or structured, but it is also important.

I hope that whichever Minister replies will be able to tell us that something solid will address this, not a general air or duty of “Oh yes, of course they will deal with it”, because we all know that things like that get ignored. We need something solid that will make sure there is a protection at least compatible with what is going on now. If we do not, we will have to go back to this, at least once, and possibly it will have to be decided by a decision of the whole House. I hope we do not need to do that, but I am quite prepared to do it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Just to reassure him, I did not dream up Amendment 179; it was originally presented in the other place, and I am taking it forward with the support of Play England. I hope that what it means will be very clear.

I was happy to attach my name to Amendment 165, which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, just presented. In a sense, the first amendment we have had here is a subset of the broader amendment. Amendment 165 is about formal play, if you like, such as organised games and structured activities; my amendment covers those but also looks more broadly at unstructured play and interaction where young people in particular have the chance to mix.

The proposed new clause introduces a play-sufficiency duty to ensure that every local planning authority

“must, so far as reasonably practicable, assess, secure, enhance, and protect”—

“protect” is particularly important—

“sufficient opportunities for children’s play when exercising any of its planning functions”.

Far too often, play is seen as something frivolous and childish, to be fitted around the edges of cramming for exams; rigid, structured arrangements. Yet we know that play is essential for physical and mental health. It is vital for the development of minds and bodies. It offers a space for the flowering of social skills and the development, crucially, of independence: the ability to assess risks, to take risks and to deal with the consequences, particularly in an unstructured environment. Yet this is being squeezed out of children’s lives in urban and other environments. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about playing fields being sold off. We have also seen a huge number of closures of swimming pools, which has real public safety implications.

16:30

Much less noticed is the way in which we have lost the informal play spaces: the corners, the spaces where the children can gather and simply interact, maybe without an adult overseeing it. That is really good. If they do not have the space, it is not going to happen. Often, these spaces are treated as expendable. They are sold off. They are packed with infill homes, perhaps. Some places still exist, but they are scattered with drug paraphernalia and choked with litter. I am sure that many noble Lords, like me, have taken part in litter picks in spaces just like that and seen how incredibly inappropriate they are when they should be places for children to play. And, of course, possibly the biggest and worst problem of all is that we have seen our streets taken over by cars, which is where once children used to play.

Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child guarantees children’s right to play, yet we are simply not living up to that. Let us think about a child trapped in temporary accommodation—there are more than 160,000 of them, frequently in bed and breakfast accommodation, without any provision for play—or the young carer, who is forced to put aside play to take up adult-style responsibilities and the 4.5 million children in poverty. We have seen many public spaces privatised, with the benches taken out. If you are going to sit down, you have to go into a coffee shop and have money. Many of our young people do not have those spaces to interact because those spaces have been privatised and the security guards will arrive and chase them off if they gather in a group. That is the reality.

As I said, this amendment is exactly the same as the one that was debated in the Commons. It was not put to the vote, but there were considerable expressions of support in the Commons. In response, the Minister said:

“The Government agree that access to play space is vital”—

well, good, but then the Minister added,

“which is why strong protections are already in place”.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 9/6/25; col. 755.]

The practical reality of what we can see happening means that that is clearly and demonstrably not the case, and that is what the amendment aims to introduce. As Eugene Minogue from Play England said:

“Seventeen years without a national commitment to play is nothing short of a generational failure. Millions of children have grown up without the opportunities, experiences and support that they should have had”.

As I was saying on the last group, the Labour Party actually has decent form on this. In 2008—noble Lords might or might not want to dig out the photo here—Ed Balls and Andy Burnham, then the Secretaries of State, got together in a playground on a swing to launch the play strategy for the Labour Party. Two years later, the coalition Government came in and threw it out. Wales and Scotland, stepping ahead on this issue, as they have on so many areas of public and environmental health, have enacted play-sufficiency legislation. In Wales, local authorities are legally required to assess and improve play opportunities. Scotland’s law integrates play issues into local development plans, with a focus on child-friendly neighbourhoods.

I hope that we hear broad support from this amendment around the House, as we heard in the Commons. I hope that the Minister will take this seriously and will be prepared to have a meeting with noble Lords who are interested and with Play England, to see whether this can be taken forward as a constructive, practical step. We need to provide a foundation of health and well-being for our young people. This is a way of giving local authorities the responsibility to do that. As we were discussing in the last group, we may have local authorities with different political groups in power and with different perspectives. But giving our young people a healthy environment is surely something that the Government here in Westminster have a responsibility to deliver for all the children in England.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I fully agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said about the importance of play, and with her imaginative approach to putting a play-sufficiency duty in this legislation. I hope that she pursues it further. She can be assured of good support from across the House, and certainly from me.

I will concentrate on the amendment from my noble friend in sport, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the protection of playing fields. This is of vital importance for numerous social, health, educational and environmental reasons. These outdoor spaces serve as essential community areas, fostering physical activity, social interaction and mental well-being among people of all ages. As urban development accelerates and land becomes increasingly valuable, safeguarding these playing fields ensures that they remain accessible and functional for future generations.

The noble Lord made the point that playing fields provide crucial opportunities for physical activity, which is fundamental for maintaining good health. The health perspective is important. Regular exercise helps prevent chronic illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. For children and teenagers, playing fields offer a safe environment for sports, games and recreational activities that promote healthy growth and development. The availability of quality playing fields encourages active lifestyles, reduces sedentary behaviours and contributes to the overall well-being of communities. We should be increasing the number of playing fields for these reasons alone, not building over them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised another important environmental point. These spaces provide significant social benefits. Playing fields serve as communal hubs where people can come together to engage in team sports, recreational activities and play, or simply socialise. They foster community spirit, inclusivity and teamwork and are vital for social cohesion. Playing fields often host local events and tournaments, strengthening community bonds and promoting a sense of pride and ownership among residents. There are also educational benefits. Access to playing fields supports schools and youth organisations in delivering physical education and extracurricular activities. Physical education is a key component of a well-rounded curriculum, contributing to students’ physical and mental development.

My noble friend Lord Deben would agree that, from an environmental perspective, playing fields contribute positively to urban ecosystems. They help combat air pollution and support biodiversity by providing habitats for various flora and fauna. The loss of playing fields can have detrimental long-term effects. Where green spaces are developed for housing or commercial use, communities lose critical, recreational and health assets. This land use change often leads to increased traffic, pollution and social inequalities, especially for residents who rely on local sports facilities for leisure and health. That is why legal protections and strategic planning are vital in safeguarding these spaces.

What is the trend? A report by Fields in Trust in 2016 highlighted that, between 2000 and 2015, approximately 3,574 outdoor sports pitches and playing fields were lost across England alone. When considering the entire UK, the total loss is estimated to be over 4,000. That trend started in the mid-1990s and continues to this day. Thousands of playing fields have been lost in the UK in recent decades, underscoring the urgent need for continued protection and strategic land use planning.

My final point is that it is essential that Sport England continue as a statutory consultee for planning applications as they affect playing fields. Sport England objects to proposals that would result in a net loss of sports provision and works to safeguard and enhance playing fields across England, with over 1,000 playing fields protected by Sport England in the year to March 2023.

Earlier this year, the Government made it clear that Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee is under threat. Sport England continues to play a key role in safeguarding sports facilities, including playing fields, by advising planning authorities and working to protect and enhance sports infrastructure across the country. If the Government cannot give a commitment that Sports England will continue in this role, I believe we should consider placing this in the Bill on Report.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I will speak to Amendment 165, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing forward this amendment, which addresses the important issue of preserving our playing fields and pitches from potential changes to the planning process.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything that has been said, and which does not need repeating. The startling statistics mentioned speak for themselves. I just want to add a few comments, some of which are from organisations on the front line. As someone who has been involved in the youth justice and sport sectors for many years, and who is presently a co-chair of both the APPG for Sport and Physical Activity and the APPG for Sport and Physical Activity in the Criminal Justice System, I have seen and heard first-hand how access to playing fields and green spaces can transform lives. They are more than just open spaces; they are gateways to better health and stronger communities.

Sport and physical activity have a huge impact on the nation’s health and well-being, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan just mentioned, not to mention all the positives that children and young people receive from an active and regular sports lifestyle, which many will carry into their adult lives. Protecting our playing fields and facilities is therefore crucial, because once they are lost, they are gone for ever.

We have heard of the many risks involved in the recent announcement of the withdrawal of Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee on planning applications. It has an impressive record of protecting more than 1,000 playing fields across the country between 2022 and 2023 alone. Removing Sports England from the planning process will leave a huge hole.

Earlier this year, Alex Welsh, the CEO of the London Playing Fields Foundation, eloquently explained that making such a move would be a huge loss. He said that:

“When a local group are worried about losing the field at the end of the road … They call us and we start by saying, ‘Do Sport England know?’”


He also stated that:

“Over the past five years, out of 398 concluded planning applications, 90% have resulted in improved or safeguarded conditions because of Sport England. What we can’t quantify is how many people are put off from blatant building on fields because they are in that role. Who will be doing it when they are gone?”


Railroading through planning will certainly see many of our sports fields vanish. Fields in Trust, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan also mentioned, is an organisation that protects 3,000 local parks, playgrounds, playing fields and green spaces across the country. It is constantly being contacted by local community groups and individuals who are concerned about the potential loss of their park or playing field and who are having to navigate a complex planning system to make their concerns heard.

We have also learned from recent research published by the journal Cities & Health, which found that planners were prioritising the approval of new homes ahead of outdoor play spaces due to a combination of policy misalignment, financial constraints and pressures stemming from a lack of housing. We can have both; it should not be one or the other.

When I was chair of StreetGames, a national charity delivering sport into disadvantaged neighbourhoods, we saw how important it is to have local and community-based facilities that are accessible for all. If we want to tackle inequalities, making access to facilities more challenging will make it more difficult for everyone to be active and healthy, which will only be compounded for those with less.

The noble Lords and Baronesses here today who are involved in sport feel very passionately about ensuring that we protect our precious sports fields and pitches, so I hope their protection can be preserved in the Bill.

16:45

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington: he and I have shared a number of sporting events together. I had the privilege of playing rugby, cricket, squash, golf, tennis—I am not quite as fit as I was, I am afraid, coming up to 89.

On the preservation of playing fields, pitches and courts, I remember when, in 1968, amazingly, there was a change in the government of the London Borough of Islington, and I had the privilege of being the leader of the incoming party. The first challenge that was put on my desk was Highbury Corner: the change to the roundabout there would take away four tennis courts. I said, “Have we not talked to the GLC about this problem?” I was told that we had but had had no positive response. This seemed to me absolutely wrong for a section of London that, on the whole, is not at all well off, and Highbury Fields was fundamental to the people of Islington. I had to go to see the then leader of the Greater London Council and, after some fairly hectic and heated discussion—in which it was pointed out to me how many millions, allegedly, it was going to take to alter the planning of the roundabout—they agreed to look at it again. I am pleased to say that those tennis courts were never removed and are still there today.

We also have to realise that the numbers taking part in sport today have grown hugely. You only have to look at sport on TNT, on television. How many of our wives were as active in sport as our daughters and granddaughters are? A very small percentage. All women’s sport has grown exponentially. It does not matter what it is—rugby, football, cricket or tennis. All have grown hugely. Against that background, the fundamental point about this amendment is so important.

I now have to declare a specific interest: I am a member of Wimbledon. This is the most successful tennis tournament in the world. It has grown exponentially over the last century. It set up a foundation—and I was one of those involved in the very early stages of that—to help those who, for financial reasons, were less well off and needed help. It attracts visitors from all over the world, and it is the biggest sporting event in the UK economy—and I did not personally understand that until I double-checked it.

There is a tangential amendment to this, which is Amendment 227E. I see my noble friend Lord Banner is sitting in his place. Sadly, I had heart failure in late December; I cannot take part as much as I would wish in your Lordships’ House, and I could not be here for that amendment because of the problems and restrictions I have, which have to be looked after. I would otherwise have spoken to that as well.

I merely re-emphasise to the Minister—I probably do not need to, really—that sport in general, and tennis in particular, is growing all the time. How wonderful it is to see our young people, and young people from all over the world, taking part. I hope that, when the Government reflect on this, they will recognise the absolute importance of this amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments has given me something of a sense of déjà vu. This is not to diminish their importance—far from it. These are serious and considered proposals. They strike at an issue that has surfaced time and again in our debates: the protection and promotion of those spaces which enable sport, recreation and play. Only last week, in moving his Amendment 138A, my noble friend Lord Moynihan reminded us, as he so frequently does, of the profound benefits that flow from creating space for sport and physical activity.

It is not merely about fitness, although that alone would be reason enough; it is about community cohesion, opportunities for young people, the long-term health of the nation, team-building, learning to get on with colleagues and working together. Well-being should be among the conditions of strategic importance within spatial development strategies.

I regret that the Government were not able to give more ground on that occasion, but there is a replay. We have VAR, and there is an opportunity for them to reconsider and give a clearer signal recognising the urgency of embedding health and well-being into the very fabric of planning. Perhaps today, in responding to this group, the Minister might move a little further.

Amendment 165, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is on the preservation of playing fields and pitches. They are not luxuries; they are the bedrock of grass-roots sport. They are where future Olympians take their first steps, but more importantly, they are where countless young people gain the habits of teamwork, discipline and healthy living. Once lost to development, they are rarely, if ever, replaced. It is therefore entirely right that a planning authority should be required to treat their preservation as a priority, not an afterthought.

In a similar vein, Amendment 179 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, reminds us of the importance of children’s play. A child who has a safe, stimulating play space nearby is a child who will grow in confidence, develop social bonds and establish the foundations of a healthy life. Deny them that, and we entrench disadvantage from the very start. I therefore commend both noble Lords for their contributions. I hope the Government will today recognise that without firm protection we risk losing something that cannot be rebuilt: our green lungs, our playing fields and the spaces where our children first learn to run, play and thrive.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for this debate on an issue that the Government take seriously. Amendments 165 and 179 are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am very grateful to them for raising these issues. There is nothing in the Bill that removes the strong protection for playing fields, especially the commitments in the NPPF. Play spaces are vital for supporting the health and well-being of local communities and as such are already considered through existing planning policy and guidance which collectively protect their provision. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that development plans should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. This includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal, including playing fields. Development plans then use those assessments to determine what provision of recreational space is required for local communities.

In December last year, the Government updated planning policy to make specific reference to safeguarding formal play spaces in the National Planning Policy Framework, enhancing the protection of those spaces where they may be threatened by other development types. The framework is clear that play spaces can be lost only if the facility is no longer of community need or there is a justified alternative somewhere else. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework when preparing a local or strategic plan or making a planning decision is a legal requirement.  

 In recognition of the importance of play space provision for communities, we are also considering what more we can say about this important area as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision-making, on which we intend to consult this year. Further considerations on play spaces are set out in national design guidance that encourages the provision of such spaces and sets out how they can be integrated into new development.  As an aside, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are aware that there is now an APPG on play, which was established by Tom Hayes MP.

The Government are in the process of updating that guidance. A new version is expected to be published later this year and play spaces have been reviewed as part of the update. Play spaces can be funded by developer contribution, secured through Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy, the CIL, which play an important role in helping to deliver the infrastructure required to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening this system.

The Government have established the parks working group, with local authorities and industry specialists, to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces, including improving the number of playgrounds. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will help deliver funding to enable new neighbourhood boards across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. Upgrading play areas is a possible scheme that such funding will be used for, enabling the enhanced provision of public areas of play for many communities.

The Government also believe that the amendments may limit a local authority’s ability to respond to its community’s needs around play spaces by setting an overly rigid framework of assessments and legislative requirements.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, once more, and reiterate my acknowledgment of how important play spaces are for local communities and the role that our planning system plays in enabling and protecting them.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive response. Do the Government recognise the role of Sport England in the context of the protection of playing fields as effective and as an important consultee in statutory consultation over the future protection of playing fields? Do they respect the fact that Sport England has done an enormous amount of good work in this context and should continue to have the opportunity to do so?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The Government have committed to consult on the impact of removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. We will do that shortly and see what the result is, and I suggest that the noble Lord takes part in that consultation as well.

As I have set out, we have robust processes in place to support and protect spaces for play and recreation, and we will consider this issue further as we update our planning policies. These matters are best addressed through our policy and funding. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press these amendments.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it is the answer that I expected: “There’s a process in place that’s going to take care of this and look at it, because we’re basically nice people, we’re going to do the right thing”. The problem with that is that you may be basically nice people trying to do the right thing, but you have a thousand different pressures pulling at you.

Preserving these spaces is going to annoy planners and people doing other things, so it is a trade-off. At the moment, there is public consultation and public pressure to make sure they are kept going. If the Minister could expand on his answer and tell us whether this will be made public so we knew what is going on, I would have a bit more faith. How do the general public or the national governing bodies know what is going through? How can they put pressure on from the outside? You would have a little bit more faith then.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord mentions this or that consultation. We have put in £1.5 billion of funding for neighbourhoods, part of which can be used for enabling the provision of public areas for play. The noble Lord cannot say that it is just about consultation and warm words; it is real money put to real effect.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, real money has been put to real effect in planning disasters throughout my adult life. It is a case of making sure that you get someone who understands what this means and is publicly able to answer. Would the Minister be able to facilitate me being able to see what this means? That is something I would like to see, and I am sure there are a couple of people here with experience in this area who might want to come in on this.

17:00

The Minister may well be able to convince me, but at the moment there is only a big plan that is going to do big things, and it should take all this into account. But that is not enough, because there are many big plans going through. There were big plans before Sport England had this and we were losing playing fields at a phenomenal rate because homes are more important than playing fields, despite the fact that playing fields lead to better community activity and mean that voluntary groups can get in and help youngsters. There are numerous sports activities such as the Ace Programme Charity and TackleLondon, which is a rugby programme I know, but they need playing fields. Without them, you have not got anything. Will we get to a point where the Government are prepared to let us know what this is, so we can go back and ask if this is enough? Is the Minister prepared to undertake that?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I have laid out quite specifically what we intend on doing and how much money we are going to spend. I know we have lost playing fields. That was not under this Government but under the previous Government. Local government was affected by major cuts in funding. So, yes, we have a plan, and we mean to implement it. We are going to spend £1.5 billion on neighbourhood boards. They will have the right to give enhanced provision of public areas for play, et cetera, so I think there is a lot that we are doing. If the noble Lord wants to meet in the near future, I am sure we can organise something so that we can discuss this and explain it further.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I asked whether the Minister would be prepared to have a meeting with me and other interested Peers and campaigners on Amendment 179.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I am sure we can sort something out.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that undertaking; I will take him up on it. I have to say I also support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We have to get this right because the potential for cock-up is massive. It is damaging to the communities around them. There is no point in having a lovely home in a dreadful environment. I thank the Minister, and I am quite happy to withdraw this amendment. What I do with it in future will depend on the outcomes of those meetings. Under those circumstances, I withdraw my amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)]

The noble Lord has withdrawn his amendment.

Amendment 165 withdrawn.

Amendment 166

Moved by

[Lord Banner]

166: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Principle of proportionality in planning(1) The principle of proportionality in planning shall apply to—(a) applications for any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, including the supporting evidence base,(b) environmental impact assessment and habitats assessment,(c) the exercise of any functions within the scope of the Planning Acts, including but not limited to procedural and substantive decision-making (by local planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State), and the preparation and provision of consultation responses (by statutory and non-statutory consultees), and(d) the determination by the Courts of claims for judicial and statutory review.(2) Applications for any permission, consent or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts, and appeals against the refusal or non-determination of such applications, must be determined in accordance with the principle of proportionality in planning.(3) So far as it is possible to do so, the Planning Acts and any secondary legislation enacted pursuant to them must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the principle of proportionality in planning.(4) The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made (whether in the plan-making or development control context) and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation (whether by way of planning conditions and obligations, or other regulation whether or not pursuant to the Planning Acts).(5) The Secretary of State may publish guidance on how the principle of proportionality in planning is to be applied.(6) The principle of proportionality in planning must not be interpreted as affecting existing requirements for local planning authorities to justify the refusal or withholding of planning permission.(7) In this section the term “Planning Acts” includes all primary legislation relating to planning prevailing at the time of the relevant application, decision or exercise of functions, including—(a) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,(c) the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,(d) the Planning Act 2008,(e) the Localism Act 2011,(f) the Housing and Planning Act 2016,(g) the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023,(h) the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025,(i) any secondary legislation relating to environmental impact assessment or habitats assessment, and(j) any other legislation relating to planning prevailing at the time of the relevant application, decision or exercise of functions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a principle of proportionality in planning to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that less can be more, so as to facilitate more focused decision-making and more effective public participation.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment stands alone and is tabled in my name. It seeks to introduce a principle of proportionality in planning, in accordance with which all planning functions would need to be exercised and all planning laws would need to be interpreted.

Although the basic structures of the planning environmental impact assessment and habitat assessment processes have remained broadly the same for a long time, their application has, over the years, become increasingly and unnecessarily disproportionate. For example, there is now in widespread areas of the planning system an overprecautionary approach to the precautionary principle which, in practice, is treated by many in the system as requiring zero risk even though the case law does not require that. Environmental statements, which in the early years of the EIA regime were reasonably concise, are now frequently delivered in vans and take up a whole room in offices, which is unhelpful to everybody concerned in the system. There is a recent instance of a DCO examining inspector asking 2,000 questions in relation to a DCO application. Again, it is not outside the norm.

Statutory consultees insist on planning applications providing a level of detail wholly disproportionate to the stage of decision-making in question. For example, in the context of an application for outline planning permission simply to confirm the principle of development for an allocated site, the principle of which is baked into the allocation, the developers can routinely be required to retest points that are already baked into the allocation or descend into matters of very granular detailed design that are far more suitable for reserved matters and discharge at condition stage. We frequently see consultants producing voluminous reports, often out of caution because of fear of being tripped up and being subject to a professional negligence claim, with considerable liability later.

These are not exceptions that prove a contrary rule; they are all too commonplace. The tendency for prolixity and disproportionality does not make decision-making any better; it just clogs up and slows down the system. This amendment is designed to give all stakeholders in the planning process the confidence that less can, and indeed should, be more, to deter them from delving into unnecessary detail and duplication. It would leave the precautionary principle untouched, so it would not amount to environmental regression, but it would, importantly, anchor it in reality and pragmatism.

There is provision in the drafting of this amendment for the Secretary of State to make and update statutory guidance on how the principle of proportionality is to be applied, which would ensure that the principle is adequately flexible and future-proof.

The proposal for the principle of proportionality has received widespread support in the development sector, including an emphatic endorsement from the Land, Planning and Development Federation, a leading representative body. Moreover, it is entirely consistent with the recently published findings of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, whose interim report was published last month. I commend that report to the Minister, if she has not had the opportunity to see it; it strays into other areas, and other ministerial responsibilities in other departments, but chapter 6 has a whole section on disproportionality in the planning context, specifically but not exclusively looking at the nuclear context. I shall quote from the summary of the findings, where it says:

“The preliminary view of the Taskforce is that problems with proportionate decision-making are interrelated and systemic. Various incentives drive more costly and time-consuming standards with no substantive safety or environmental benefits”.


There we have it in clear back and white letters from the regulatory task force that a principle of proportionality would add a huge amount of value to the planning system but at no environmental cost. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Banner in this amendment about proportionality. My experience of this come from my membership of the CIL review, to which I was appointed by the Minister about 10 years ago to imagine a new approach to developer contributions. I do not have the report in front of me—it was a long time ago—but there was one statistic as part of my evidence-gathering process that remains with me today. Ninety percent of all planning applications are for 10 dwellings or less, but the 10% that are for 11 or more are well over half of the total number of houses that are planned to be built in this country. There is an asymmetry; the larger applications are significantly larger than the smaller ones, yet we treat everything the same.

If we are to encourage local builders who spend much time with the local vernacular, local contractors and local supply chains, we must have a more flexible and proportionate system. Proportionality exists in so many walks of life. Just to reflect for a moment on some of the Bills that we have been looking at in the last few months, there is proportionality for small businesses in employment legislation. The Minister and I debated in the Moses Room the other day the definition of a smaller authority, with a different audit test that would happen to those smaller authorities with a turnover of £15 million or less. In the brewing industry, the smaller brewers have an adventitious duty regime. Proportionality should not be alien; in fact, it should be something to be encouraged.

As part of the CIL review work, we looked at how we might help smaller builders and postulated that developments of less than 10 dwellings, as a threshold, would be exempted from Section 106; they would pay the CIL—the community infrastructure levy—instead. I thought that that would be a really proportionate way of doing it. People would make a meaningful contribution to the local infrastructure, but without getting tied up in knots on some of the smaller minutiae. That is an approach we could follow.

In local authorities, when someone applies for planning permission, there is a validation exercise. Unless you have submitted your ecology assessment, CIL form and everything else, the clock does not even start ticking. I would not want whole areas of legislation to be cast aside, and I am sure my noble friend agrees. I do not believe he is suggesting for one moment that there would be no ecology report; it is just that an ecology report for a set of five bungalows in a village on the outskirts of the development boundary should not be subject to the same test as a much more significant development.

That is important because it is significantly more expensive to deliver smaller schemes. There are certain fixed costs of applying for a planning application that have to be amortised—jam-spread, if you will—over a small number of developments. There is a diseconomy of scale. I did some fag-paper arithmetic and found that it is about £40,000 more per dwelling house when you take in some of the extra burdens of a smaller-scale development over a larger one. That is why we do not have affordable housing, a subject that detained us in our debate on the Bill on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.

We need to drag out the simple truth that smaller schemes are more expensive and that affects viability, which is a significant challenge to getting Britain building. If only we could have this proportionate effect and make a virtue of it, we would give a bit more choice to the market, and with speedy delivery. It would increase the liquidity of the local supply chains in local economies, which would make us all richer and play a significant part in getting Britain building and the economy growing.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said on several occasions, we need to cut down on the bureaucracy of planning and the excessive application of policy on habitats. Even the Prime Minister has criticised the HS2 £100 million bat tunnel.

In my experience, we have an over-precautionary approach in planning, so I am attracted by the principle of proportionality, especially as it is promoted by a well-known planning KC, who has already contributed very positively to this Committee. My only question, either to him or to the Minister, is whether there is a risk of rising legal costs rather than the reverse, which I think is the intention behind the provision. Indeed, could this unintentionally hurt smaller builders?

[Lord Banner (Con)]

No, in my assessment. Whenever the law changes, there will be an adaptation period. That is axiomatic, but it will be the case anyway because we will have new legislation. The intention behind it, if anything, is to streamline and therefore reduce costs, including legal costs.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am intrigued by this exchange, because the thought had occurred to me that, by introducing a principle of proportionality into the legislation, we would then open the floodgates to contention about what is proportional. The question of JR seems to be immediately rearing its head. Therefore, I cannot see how, rather than simplifying the system, it would not add a layer of complication.

The argument about the CIL in relation to small developments is a different one. There is some merit in that because of the flexibility one needs for small builders. However, that is only part of an ancillary argument to the broader and slightly dangerous argument brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, in favour of over-complicating the planning system in the way he suggests.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, proportionality is in the eye of the beholder; it depends on your perspective. These ideas—proportionality, reducing bureaucracy, speeding up small developments and reducing costs—are seen from the perspective of the developer. Those are fair arguments to make, but, equally, if we are to be proportionate, we need to see the other side of the balancing scales: the perspective of those on the receiving end of the development. For example, taking away the importance of bats, badgers or whatever might reduce costs and bureaucracy and speed up development, but it would anger local people.

17:15

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, made the point that proportionality depends on who you are and whether something seems proportionate. If the noble Lord, Lord Banner, could give us a clear definition of proportionality—the Royal Town Planning Institute has one in its documents—there would be merit in it, but just saying “Let’s be proportionate” has less merit.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

There is a definition in proposed new subsection (4) of the amendment:

“The principle of proportionality in planning means that the nature and extent of information and evidence required to inform the determination of any permission, consent, or other approval within the scope of the Planning Acts shall be proportionate to the issues requiring determination, having regard to decisions already made … and the extent to which those issues will or can be made subject to future regulation”.


Proposed new subsection (5) then says:

“The Secretary of State may publish guidance”.


It is spelled out and would be eminently capable of being applied.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is about “having regard to”. We have had that debate on other groups.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that everybody would be in favour of this. I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling Amendment 166 and bringing this important issue before the House. The principle of proportionality deserves to stand alone in this debate, for it goes directly to the heart of the speed, efficiency and accuracy of our planning system.

As ever, my noble friend has presented the case with his customary clarity and intellectual weight; I thank him for that. He has shown that this principle is not only desirable, but essential. His amendment would embed proportionality firmly within the planning process, giving decision-makers, applicants, consultees and indeed the courts confidence that less can sometimes be more. It would allow for decision-making that is sharper in focus and public participation that is clearer and more effective.

I accept that this is a technically complicated clause, but it is also a vital one. At its core, it states that the information and evidence required to determine any planning application should be proportionate to the real issues at stake, taking into account decisions already made at the plan-making stage and recognising where issues could be dealt with later, whether through planning conditions, obligations or other forms of regulation. It is important to be clear about what this amendment would not do. It would not dilute or weaken the responsibility of local planning authorities to justify their decisions, particularly when refusing or withholding planning permission. Rather, it would ensure that planning does not become mired in an endless accumulation of unnecessary reports, assessments and duplications that add little value but cause delay and frustration.

That is why this apparently technical definition is in fact deeply needed reform. It would be a practical safeguard against a system that too often risks becoming paralysed by its own complexity. If we are serious about unblocking progress and enabling the timely delivery of new homes—1.5 million in the next three and a half or four years—and, with them, the wider infrastructure and investment our communities require, principles such as this must be at the heart of a modern planning system. The Government would do well to accept this amendment. In doing so, they would signal that they are not just merely managing a process but are serious about reforming it, serious about tackling the barriers that hold us back and serious about delivering the homes and the growth that this country so urgently needs.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendment 166, regarding proportionality in the planning system, ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I thank him for bringing it forward. It seeks

“to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that”

in the planning system

“less can be more”.

We agree with this sentiment. If we are to meet the 1.5 million homes target, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has just outlined, the planning system needs to operate more effectively and with greater certainty. Of course, the problem here is that although the noble Lord described it as reality and pragmatism, unfortunately one man or woman’s reality and pragmatism will be somebody else’s dystopian nightmare, so we have to be a bit careful about how we move forward.

We all know that planning has got much more complex and litigious, which has led many local planning authorities to take a precautionary approach when preparing local plans and dealing with planning applications. This is why we too want to see a more proportionate approach to planning. However—and this is where, unfortunately, we disagree with the noble Lord—we feel that introducing a new statutory principle of proportionality across all of planning is not the way to achieve this. This itself would introduce a new legal test, which risks more opportunities for legal challenge and grounds for disagreements—points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. Instead, we believe it is better to promote proportionality through national planning policy and by looking at specific opportunities to streamline procedures through regulatory reform.

The Bill already includes important reforms to achieve this, including the nationally significant infrastructure projects reforms and the creation of the nature restoration fund. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, issues concerning SME builders and how to support them are under very serious consideration, including the large package of financial support that the Government have already announced, and we will continue to consider what more might be done in that regard. We are also doing much more alongside the Bill—for example, scaling back the role of statutory consultees through our review of those bodies, and examining whether there should be a new medium development category where policy and regulatory requirements would be more proportionate, as we recently set out in our site thresholds working paper. For all the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her comments. It is encouraging that we share the overall objective of proportionate, streamlined decision-making, even if we part company, for now, on how to achieve it.

I would like to come back on a couple of points. On legal risk, the first point made by the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Pinnock, was about the definition—would there be ambiguity regarding what the principle means? I suggest not. It is set out in terms in subparagraph (5), with the ability of the Secretary of State to promote statutory guidance. It may be that the language can be improved, but I encourage the Government to continue the helpful discussions we have had outside this Chamber on whether that risk might be reduced.

In any case, given that the interpretive duty in the principle of proportionality is to interpret all planning laws in a proportionate, pragmatic way, the overall net effect of this amendment would in fact be to reduce legal risk. Because in any judicial review context, if somebody came along arguing for a particularly restrictive, over-precautionary interpretation, the court would have, in neon lights, messaging from Parliament that the court should take a less onerous, less prescriptive approach, which is bound to reduce the overall success rate of judicial reviews in the planning context. So, I suggest that, overall, this would reduce rather than increase legal risk. The stress test of that is the LPDF, which represents SMEs—those developers who would be particularly affected by increased legal costs were they to arise. Its emphatic view—in fact, this is the amendment, of all those before the Committee, it is most emphatic on—is that the amendment would be helpful. So, I will pursue it on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 166 withdrawn.

Amendments 167 and 168 not moved.

Amendment 169

Moved by

[Lord Banner]

169: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Relationship between overlapping permissionsAfter section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission for development already carried out), insert—“73AA Relationship between overlapping permissions(1) Where there is more than one planning permission which relates to some or all of the same land, the lawfulness of both past and future development carried out pursuant to one of those planning permissions shall be unaffected by the carrying out of development pursuant to another of those planning permissions, except to the extent expressly stated in any of those permissions or in any obligation under section 106 of this Act (planning obligations) related to any of those permissions.(2) Subsection (1) applies only where one of the relevant planning permissions was granted after the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed.(3) In this section “planning permission” means—(a) a planning permission under Part 3 of this Act, and (b) a planning permission granted by article 3 (permitted development) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596).”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment addresses the potentially deleterious implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Hillside Parks case.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 169 seeks to mitigate the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment in a case called Hillside. I should at the outset declare an interest, in that I was leading counsel in Hillside, albeit I am no longer retained by the party in question. It is a highly technical amendment but really important, and I will do my best for the record to summarise the problem. The Minister and I have had discussions, and I know she is aware of the issue.

Large developments—the most important ones for the growth this country needs—such as urban regeneration schemes, new settlements, large urban extensions, infrastructure and the like can take many years, and quite often decades, to build out. Over that time, it is almost inevitable that some of the details of the later phases will need, by the time they get built out, to change and adapt to evolving needs, to things that have changed in the economy or in our ways of life since the original planning permission was granted.

To put a bit of flesh on that, for example, a mixed-use urban extension might have offices in the later phases that can no longer be filled due to the post-Covid shift to working from home, which could not have been foreseen at the time the original outline permission was granted. Therefore, it may be proposed to swap out those offices, which would simply be a white elephant, for last mile logistics, as the need for that sector has increased. A hotel planned for a later phase may no longer be viable because of changing tourism patterns, but there may be a greater need for a care home instead.

A very well-known example is the largest outline permission in this country, Liverpool Waters. The planning permission for the regeneration of Liverpool Docklands was granted in 2011. The city council is on the record as indicating that would be a three-decade planning permission to build out. During the currency of that development, an opportunity was identified to relocate Everton Football Club into its amazing new stadium, which opened only a few weeks ago. Therefore, the development had to be rejigged to accommodate the stadium.

For various reasons, applying for a new site-wide planning permission in circumstances where there has been a need to adapt and change in relation to evolving circumstances is not practical. It is too onerous in terms of the evidence base, because you need a new site-wide EIA, for example. It is too expensive for that reason, and due to the cost of planning fees for site-wide permissions and large-scale developments. Importantly, it is too slow, because everything would have to be reappraised. You would have to redo the surveys, which can take place only at certain times of the year, even in relation to those elements that are not changing, because the site-wide second permission would apply to the whole.

Therefore, a widespread practice has developed in the planning field in what is often called drop-in or stand-alone permissions, where the planning application red line is drawn not around the whole site area, but around the area it is going to change. In one of the examples I gave earlier, you would draw the line around the area earmarked for offices, not around the whole development. You would then apply to swap the particular development within that stand-alone planning permission area. The local authority would consider the planning merits of the change going on in that stand-alone area without having to re-appraise everything.

The developer would obviously have to make a good case for the change and if it did not, it would not be allowed. But if it did, and this routinely has happened, a change would be authorised. If permission was granted, the change would take effect pursuant to the stand-alone permission, so the area for the offices would become logistics in the example I gave, and the remainder of the wider development would proceed unchanged under the original site-wide permission.

The Supreme Court in the Hillside case has drastically affected this practice. The legal principle that the Supreme Court has enshrined is that if implementing a later stand-alone permission has the effect that it is now physically impossible in a material way to build out the site-wide permission in its entirety, the site-wide permission can no longer be relied on for any future development that is authorised by it but no longer built, so the residual site-wide permission is essentially lost, with very profound consequences.

There are sometimes workarounds, but they are incomplete and, even when they do exist, they can be uncertain, risky, cumbersome, slow and costly. To give a sense of the magnitude of this problem, since the Hillside judgment was given in late 2022, I estimate that I have written between 300 and 400 opinions on how to work around Hillside—so the one person who will lose out because of this amendment is me. This amendment would clear up the uncertainty and provide a clear route through.

I am not wedded to the precise drafting, if the Minister and her officials consider it could be improved. I expect the Minister will say that the Government recognise the difficulty presented by Hillside but that finding a solution to it is a complex matter which requires detailed consideration—and so it is. However, with respect, it is the job of the Government and Parliament to grapple with those complexities and come up with a workable solution, rather than kick the can down the road.

17:30

In that context, I point out that this Bill is the second piece of planning legislation to come before Parliament since the Hillside judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court, with the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act being the first. I fear that, if we do not come up with a solution to Hillside in the context of this Bill, the Government’s and Parliament’s credibility will diminish in the planning and development sector, because it will see us, at the second time of asking, still unable to come up with a solution for a real and widespread problem, one that is crying out for a legislative answer. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Banner for raising this issue through Amendment 169. His last point was that this is the second piece of planning legislation since the Hillside judgment in 2022. The earlier legislation was the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. My noble friend was not in your Lordships’ House at the time of its consideration but he will no doubt have noted that Section 110 of the Act provides for the insertion of new Section 73B into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the purpose of which is to say that material variations are permitted, as long as they are not substantially different from the original permission.

What reading the legislation will not tell him is that, during the course of the debate on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I introduced an original amendment, the purpose of which was to restore the law to the Pilkington principle—in effect that overlapping permissions would be lawful, as long as the subsequent permission sought did not render the original permission no longer physically capable of being implemented. My noble friend on the Front Bench, then the Minister, may recall that the Government at the time did not accept it, but did accept that they should legislate. There is a difference between Section 110 and the Pilkington principle. There are, in practice, quite a lot of cases in which the permission that is sought does not render the original permission incapable but would substantially amend the original permission, and does not meet the narrow test of being not substantially different from the original permission.

It was not all that I was looking for but it was considerable progress in the right direction. It was important, because a judgment subsequent to Hillside, as my noble friend will recall, said that the original planning permissions in these cases were not severable. You cannot go in, take some part of an original permission and amend it, and treat the rest of the permission as being valid. The whole permission needs to be sought all over again, which is exactly what has caused a substantial part of the problem that my noble friend has benefitted from, in the professional sense, because there are so many such permissions that would otherwise have to be sought all over again.

I agree with my noble friend that something more needs to be done. I happen not to agree with his drafting of Amendment 169. We would be better off saying of overlapping permissions that, where the later permission does not render the original permission wholly incapable of being implemented, it would remain lawful, otherwise you run the risk of inconsistent, overlapping planning permissions, which is not a place we wish to get to. It would also be entirely helpful if the amendment to be introduced would make it clear that, for the purposes of this, the original planning permission is severable—you can have a drop-in permission.

I hope my noble friend would agree with all of that. More to the point, I hope Ministers will agree that we have not solved this problem. In particular, we have not solved the problem as Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, bringing in the new Section 73B, has not been brought into force. I have asked this question before and had a positive answer, and so I hope it is the Government’s intention to bring Section 110 into force, and I hope that can be done soon. At the same time, I suggest that my noble friend comes back to this issue on Report and perhaps brings us an amendment capable of amending the new Section 73B to restore the Pilkington principle and enable planning permissions that would otherwise relate to the same overall red line to be severable for the purposes of a material change in planning permissions.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for bringing to our attention the practical implications of the Hillside judgment within Amendment 169 today. These are complex issues, but his amendment shines a clear light on the risks to developers and local authorities alike, and the potential chilling effect on much-needed projects. It is precisely at moments like these that the Government should lean on the wisdom and experience of noble Lords who understand the realities of these issues on the ground.

We have had the benefit of meeting my noble friend Lord Banner privately to discuss these matters in detail. That conversation was extremely valuable in setting out the issues so clearly, and we are grateful for his time and expertise. We will continue to work with him to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed. I very much hope the Minister will give a positive and constructive reply and that the concerns raised today will be fully taken into account.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the great benefits of being in your Lordships’ House is that every day is a school day and you learn something new. I had no idea there was anything like a reverse declaration of interests, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, just made, in saying that he is going to lose out if this amendment is taken into account.

This is a highly technical amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, for his explanations of the background to the case and for setting it in a context which made it a little easier to understand. I am grateful for the amendments around the Hillside Supreme Court judgment.

Amendments 169 and 185SB are technical but important amendments about overlapping consents. Amendment 169 seeks to address the implications of the Hillside judgment in relation to overlapping planning permissions. It seeks in particular to enable the carrying out of a development under an initial permission when an overlapping permission has been implemented, making it physically impossible for the first permission to be carried out.

Amendment 185SB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, focuses on overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders. The Government recognise that the Hillside judgment and subsequent court decisions have caused concerns across the development sector, and the noble Lord was kind enough to send me some of the articles that have been written since, setting out which problems they are causing. It has made it more challenging to use the practice of drop-in permissions to deal with changes in development proposals for plots on large-scale residential and commercial development in response to changing circumstances. There have been concerns about the implications for the implementation of development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects when planning permissions have been used to deal with minor variations.

We want to ensure that large-scale developments, where they need to change, can secure the necessary consents to deal with these changes effectively and proportionately. Unfortunately, we are not persuaded that Amendment 169 is the solution to Hillside for overlapping planning permissions. It is too broad in scope, and we must be absolutely sure that it would not undermine the integrity of the planning system. The long-standing principle that Hillside endorsed—that it is unlawful to carry out a development when another permission makes it physically impossible to carry it out—is a sound one. Decisions are made on the merits of the entire development proposal, and this amendment would allow developers to pick and choose what parts of an approved development they wanted to implement when they had a choice.

Similarly, we need to consider carefully the implications of legislating to deal with overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders in general terms. While I understand the desire for certainty, there is more flexibility through a development consent order to deal with the overlap with planning permissions.

That said, I emphasise again that, as a Government committed to ensuring that the planning system supports growth, we are keen to ensure that the right development can be consented and implemented quickly. We want to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to deal with change to large-scale developments. Clause 11 already provides a framework for a more streamlined and proportionate process to change development consent orders, but we also want to look at how the framework can be improved for planning permissions. We would welcome further discussions with your Lordships and the wider sector on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for pointing out issues around Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I need to revisit our correspondence to refresh my mind on what we said about that, but his point about restoring the law to the Pilkington principle is noted and I am sure we will come back to this.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendment 227F and for his continued commitment to energy security and net-zero objectives. This amendment seeks to create a statutory timeframe of 10 weeks for decisions to be made on compulsory purchase orders made under the Electricity Act 1989. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030 and it is clear that rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. We recognise the importance of providing all parties with a clear understanding of likely timelines to support project planning and investment decisions but do not consider the imposition of statutory deadlines for processing applications to be the best way to achieve this.

The process required for a CPO varies depending on the features of each case, which means that different types of case require different timescales. Guidance from MHCLG already includes indicative timings for the determination of CPOs in England. These range from four to 24 weeks, depending on the case and the process required. Using shorter deadlines to speed up a process is like passing a law that outlaws any delay in your journey up the motorway. That might sound appealing—especially if, like me, you have to travel on the M25 quite regularly—but, if something needs to be done more quickly, one must first find out what things are causing it to take the time that it takes and then address those issues. Otherwise, one is simply legislating in a way that says: “Do it faster”.

I know that, as a former Minister in DESNZ responsible for planning decisions, my noble friend will recognise that what is really needed are system reforms and simplifications, a more efficient digital case handling system and more capacity. I am delighted to confirm that the Government are already delivering on all three of these things. We are treating the disease, not just the symptom.

I have listened carefully to all the arguments put forward today and can assure noble Lords that we share the aim of ensuring that all processes for CPOs proceed as expeditiously as possible. I hope, for these reasons, that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I am relieved to know that, if I get hit by a bus on the way home today—which is very unlikely, given the strikes—my legacy to this House will be the concept of a reverse declaration of interest.

It seems that there is unanimity across the Committee that the Hillside judgment generates a cause for a legislative solution. It also appears to be common ground that new Section 73B, if and when it is enacted pursuant to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, would not be a panacea. It may help in some cases—probably about one-third, but no more than that, so there is a need to go further.

Where we part is on the drafting and what the right-worded solution is. I am very much not wedded to the wording of my amendment; it is really there as a challenge in the hope that, collectively, we can come up with something that carries the overall consent of this House. I look forward to working with the Minister and my noble friend Lady Scott to find a form of words that will achieve the solution that we need. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 169 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

Before I call the next amendment, just to help the Committee, I point out that Amendments 185K and 220 in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, appear to be identical. I am sure that she will explain that to the Committee when she makes her contribution.

17:45

Amendment 170

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

170: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Community infrastructure levy and section 106 obligations(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations amend the legislation in subsection (2) to ensure that— (a) local authorities publish annual data on the use of planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) and Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) funds, including—(i) the purpose of the planning obligation or CIL fund;(ii) any amount of money committed under a planning obligation or CIL fund which is left unspent;(iii) the reason for any unspent money;(b) the Secretary of State has the power to require the local authority to undertake the planning obligation or works under a CIL, in the event that adequate efforts to do so have not been made;(c) if the local authority has not spent the developer funds during an agreed timeline, then the local authority must contact the developer to explore joint working to deliver the agreed service or improvements.(2) The legislation this section applies to are—(a) the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(b) the Planning Act 2008, and(c) the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/948).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Banner is doing reverse declarations, I should probably just check; I think I have made them at this stage, but just in case, I declare that I am a director of Peers for the Planet, although I speak entirely independently of them on this and on all the amendments I have tabled to the Bill.

It is a pleasure to kick-start this group and speak to Amendment 170. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Parkinson, who, sadly, is unable to speak to this amendment today but has assured me of his continued support despite his absence. I am grateful to all the other noble Lords who have spoken to me of late to support me on this and to the external organisations that have been in touch too.

The amendment has a series of parts to it. First, I will set out the context of why I feel something is necessary before talking through what the amendment seeks to do. The amendment relates to two aspects of planning law where a local authority receives funds through development. These are Section 106, which is part of the planning law that allows councils to negotiate money from developers in exchange for granting planning permission to offset the impact of new development and fund specific improvements in the area, while CIL, the community infrastructure levy, is a charge for infrastructure in the broader area.

For background, I first became interested in support of these forms of investment many moons ago when I worked in London City Hall alongside another noble friend who is sadly not with us, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. It was amazing to see, alongside many other developments across the capital, things that were being delivered through this funding. In particular, I was always struck by the work that was taking place in Vauxhall Nine Elms and the extension to the Northern line, and how that unlocked the wider development in that area.

I was blown away only recently when the Bill started when someone mentioned in passing that, last year, the Home Builders Federation did an analysis in which it calculated that around £8 billion-worth of unspent money is sitting in local authorities across England and Wales. I say that again: £8 billion. I know in today’s age of Monopoly money that may not mean much to some, but it certainly means a hell of a lot to me. Within that, there is money for affordable housing, which could unlock around 11,000 affordable homes, and an estimated £1 billion for highways and roads—I know we have elections next year; let us just dream of all those leaflets where we could have candidates pointing at the potholes being filled. There is £2 billion-worth to go towards schools and education and an estimated £850 million that could go towards recreation and play areas. In the same report, the HBF estimates that

“the total amount of unspent Section 106 contributions has more than doubled”

since the year before, suggesting a growing backlog of undelivered infrastructure. I think everyone would accept that obviously it takes time to deliver and build, but it is worth noting that

“around a quarter of the unspent contributions have been held for more than five years”,

and some councils

“admit to holding on to funds for more than 20 years”.

How did HBF get that information and is it easy for any of us to gather? It is not, and that is another part of the problem. There are, as I am sure the Minister will say, the infrastructure funding statements that each receiving authority has to publish annually. Much of the information is mandatory and some information is advisory, but it could be clearer and more transparent. The statistics that I have used earlier, where there is a breakdown, do not have to be sought through the FoI process, which is what the HBF had go through. The same goes for how long the funds have been held and why there has been a delay. In today’s data age, there is no reason why this information could not be readily accessible and available. 

Turning specifically to the proposed new clause in the amendment, noble Lords will see that it contains a number of parts tackling the challenges I have laid out. The first relates to transparency, and seeks to ensure that the data which is published through the infrastructure funding statement has even more information—information which the local authority will already have—setting out the purpose of the original funding, the amount which has been unspent and the reason for it not being spent. If there is readily accessible information, the public can see what is expected and not have to put in FoIs to understand why it is not happening.

This in itself can help the local authority deliver, but I want to explore what more can be done. The second part relates to delivery. If the government department deems that the local authority has not done enough to attempt to deliver this improvement, the Secretary of State would be able to require an authority to get on with the job, or at least make steps to deliver what has been agreed. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, nodding—I will come to her in a moment, but it is good that I have her support already. This in itself is not radical. It says only that the local authority should be doing what it said it would do. For the public, it would mean additional accountability.

Finally, the third part would require that, if the developer’s funds have not been spent during a previously agreed timeline, the local authority must contact the developer to ensure that it is possible to work together to deliver this service. I did contemplate, when I was drafting this, including another line in the amendment which would effectively mean that, if a local authority had failed to deliver the agreed improvement during the agreed timeline, the funds would be handed back to the developer, as I know has happened in some circumstances. I took it out in the end because, ultimately, I thought that it would be the local communities who would be losing out on the benefit and it would let the local authority off the hook. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would agree with that, given her Amendment 220.

I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my good and noble friend Lord Lansley sat here. This was, I think, touched on two days ago, when we last convened on this Bill. As ever, my noble friend made the customarily brainy observation that, ultimately, this is a contract with the developer. Further, it is something that the National Audit Office looked at in only the last couple of months.

I want to be clear that I am moving this amendment not because I want us to debate the virtue or otherwise of such measures on development. I am not suggesting that we change how these charges are levied, or indeed whether they should be reduced or made higher. Most people would say that we need to be acutely aware of not making development so burdensome and costly that it happens even less than it already is. I am merely trying to find a better way to deliver what is in the existing law.

From every aspect, this seems to me to be an absolute no-brainer. For example, many developers say that they want something like this—they want people to know not just about the development that they have built but that they are contributing something to the community. Local people too want it; rather than the money sitting in a council—perhaps they do not even know about it—and gathering dust in someone else’s account, local people would actually benefit from it.

Some may think that this would put additional pressures on the local authority to deliver when it is, as we all know, facing many pressures. Obviously, we respect everyone who works in a local authority, from the leader down. I just need to look around the Chamber to know that we recognise on all our Front Benches the importance of local authorities. But these funds should be spent as they were intended. It cannot be right, to my mind, that up and down the land £8 billion pounds is sat there when it is meant to be for the people.

Without adequate information, it is not possible to ascertain why this money has not been spent in every location. In some cases, it has been made clear that it is for a multitude of reasons, but there should be an element of pressure on an authority to deliver. If it does not, it should be compelled to go back to the developer to explore what else is possible to make it happen. I am not suggesting that the developer should therefore contribute even more again. The authority should have secured enough to deliver in the first place. It may be that the agreement needs to be revised, or it could be that the development can deliver something in collaboration with the authority, or that the intended amenity is no longer required as previously intended. While that money is in limbo and not being spent, it is not delivering for the people who felt the impact of the original development in the first place.

I start from the position that growth and development are good. We need good-quality homes, more business and the economy to grow. I know some do, but I do not see growth as a bad thing. At the same time that we say that growth is good and we need it, we must say that need people to see the benefit. Yes, there will be more people buying things in shops and milling around, with more money going into the general pot.

Equally, people in those communities will have had some upheaval with the development that was there first. As a result, people may be concerned about the extra demands on local services and that their trains and roads may be busier. At Second Reading, everyone said that they broadly support growth and development. If the Government are serious about changing the public’s views on growth and development then giving communities better visibility of the benefits of that development is essential. Recent polling from Public First, published in the last few days, found that 55% of people generally support development in their area. Some of the reasons for that are that they want to see regeneration, jobs, investment, and more shops and amenities. But by far the biggest reason for people opposing development is concern about pressures on local infrastructure. That is what I am trying to fix.

This amendment is not political—it is certainly not party political. It would help the Government, as they would be able to demonstrate that growth is good and that they are on the side of the people. It would not be onerous because it would not put anything additional on to a developer. It would not stop development; in fact, I genuinely think that it would be good for development and would improve accountability and transparency. Because of that, I want it to be there for people, to deliver what they expect and deserve. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 185K, 185L, 218 and 220 in my name follow on well from the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which these Benches fully support. The noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight the importance of community benefits coming from development and ensuring that they are delivered. The amendments in my name would add to those that the noble Lord has just introduced.

Amendments 185K and 185L would insert new clauses after Clause 52 providing a duty to compel a complete local infrastructure. Amendment 185K seeks to make legally binding agreements associated with development consent orders or SDSs. Community benefits are the elements of a consent order that will be the last stage, almost inevitably, of implementation of a scheme. Without legal enforcement, it is possible for developers to significantly delay that implementation. Amendment 185K would empower local planning authorities to resist such moves and ensure that community benefits are fulfilled.

Amendment 185L would provide a further safeguard for local communities where a developer has signed a Section 106 agreement for the provision of a local amenity. If the amenity has not been built, the relevant local authority will have the power under this amendment to take over that responsibility but, crucially, will not be able to use that land for any other purpose, and neither will the developer. Those amendments relate to development consent orders and SDSs.

Amendments 218 and 220, although they have identical wording, relate to later parts of the Bill concerning compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 218 seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 106, relating to compulsory development orders. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of land value capture. This is a policy concept and a way of raising funds, where public authorities recover the unearned increase in land value, often created by public investment in infrastructure or planning permissions, then reinvest it in public services and projects. This ensures that the benefits of public development—I emphasise that it is public development—are shared with the community, rather than solely accruing to the private landowners. That seems fair to me.

18:00

The review of land value capture proposed by Amendment 218 would investigate various methods of capturing an increase in land value. Various parts of the world use this mechanism and different ways of assessing what proportion of the money should be captured for public benefit. The problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, said, is that people experiencing the concept of growth in a community too often find that there is nothing in it for them. The introduction of land value capture enables a community that is hosting public infrastructure for the benefit of the national economy to have local compensation in the form of local benefits.

Amendment 220 is just about the duty to complete that, as is the consent order amendment that I referred to earlier. The wording is the same because the intention is the same, but it is under a different part of the Bill.

The four amendments in my name, relating to different proposed new clauses to the Bill, are all designed to further enhance the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The purpose of his amendment is to ensure that Section 106 or CIL money is properly spent. These amendments would give legal binding to that and empower local authorities to take on that provision, if needed. They also introduce the idea of land value capture. I hope the Minister will respond well to this series of amendments on community benefits from growth.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I relinquished my position in the queue of speakers on these amendments, as it seemed obvious that my noble friend Lady Pinnock should follow the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. I am speaking to my Amendment 184. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, described her group 5 as the “odds and sods” group; this should probably have gone in that, as it applies to something rather different, but here we are.

Amendment 184 relates to what is becoming known as stepping-stone housing provision, which is a tool to combat youth homelessness across the UK. The amendment seeks an exemption to national space standards to facilitate this particular kind of housing more quickly and with less stress than it appears to need to achieve it at the moment.

We all know that youth homelessness blights the nation, with almost 120,000 young people—people between the ages of 16 and 24—asking their councils for help because they are homeless or at risk of homelessness, according to the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint. Many colleagues are familiar with Centrepoint: the charity’s efforts to address youth homelessness started, as many did, with a single night shelter in the late 1960s; its work with young people has spanned the last 50 years.

One of the greatest challenges to ending youth homelessness is a lack of genuinely affordable housing options for young people, especially those who are ready to move on from a hostel or temporary accommodation to living independently. One of the key differences for young homeless people is that they are not yet entrenched in that world; they are in the circumstances they are in, and, with the right sort of support and help, they could, and do, manage to go on to lead stable and fulfilling lives. The sooner we get them, the better. Unfortunately, thousands of young people are trapped in a cycle of emergency housing, unemployment and benefit reliance and are prevented from becoming independent adults who can fulfil their potential.

Along with other charities in the same situation—move-on accommodation is the big issue for homelessness charities—Centrepoint has delivered an innovative housing model called stepping-stone accommodation, because it is just that: a transitional accommodation solution which provides the independence, agency and space for young people at risk of homelessness to realise their potential. As part of this model, Centrepoint is building stepping-stone houses at 24 square metres for young people at risk of becoming homeless. The problem that the amendment is trying to solve—and I hope the Minister may empathise with the problem and even come up with a better solution—is that this housing is below the national space standard of 37 square metres for one-bedroom dwellings. Councils are desperate for more housing, but the rigid application of the space standard has meant that planning applications have been bogged down for years—in this case, four years.

We all get asked to do amendments, and we think whether we will take them on. Well, before I decided to take this on, I went to see this accommodation. I found myself in Peckham, where I had not been for many decades—I taught there briefly, many moons ago. Quite frankly, I was blown away—I can use no other words. What I saw was uplifting and encouraging. It was good. The first thing you notice is a solid front door. They have their own front door; they are not in an HMO. They have a lovely shower to the left, a bedroom area, a wardrobe, and a little kitchenette area with a table and chair. The people there were just safe and pleased to be there.

I know many colleagues are wary of reducing space standards, as am I, but this is for very good reason, which is looking for a way to be able to exempt this. Noble Lords will know why they need to do this—I am sure they are already a step ahead of me. It is to do with cost. If you make them a little bit smaller, you can make more.

The model is about getting these young people into work and independent. Unlike with an RSL, which might set its rents according to what the Government allow, the rent is set according to the individual young person’s job. You can have a situation, which there is at Reuben House, where they are paying different rents, but it is according to their ability to pay. It is about getting the young person to be more responsible and eventually to move into ordinary accommodation. Of course, if you cannot guarantee what your rent is going to be, that makes it trickier. There are many good reasons with regard to rent and income, and I do not want to go into that now, but I would be prepared to meet with the Minister to explain that further.

The size is key to being able to do that. The young people in these starter homes are quite clear that a few more metres would not make much odds to them, quite frankly. The homes are for single young people, living on their own for the first time, who need a manageable home that is economic to run. They are indeed that, with all the fuel efficiency and everything else. It gets the young people off benefits and into work, and to make a positive contribution.

Centrepoint and others have proved that this is viable and that it can have a transformative impact by helping young people escape homelessness for good. A targeted exemption—that is the key—should make the planning process easier for charities, so that they can build more homes more quickly for young people and help towards ending the housing crisis. I would value an opportunity to bring Centrepoint officers here to discuss this model and how it works in practice, and to offer a visit to anyone who felt it was appropriate.

I shall leave noble Lords with the words of one of the young people living in Reuben House, who said, “Stepping Stone not only provided me with a safe place to sleep but offered me a sense of hope and dignity during a challenging time in my life. Thanks to your assistance, I am now on a path towards stability and independence”.

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of Amendment 184 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, on stepping-stone accommodation. This worthwhile amendment promotes transitional housing solutions for those at risk of homelessness, as well as creating incentives for young people to stay at work with financial independence and living in quality, affordable accommodation.

I have been a long-term supporter of the charity Centrepoint, which has done incredible work in providing solutions for those who have been unfortunate enough to be homeless. The stepping-stone homes initiative has delivered self-contained, high-quality homes for young people, with the rent capped, as the noble Baroness mentioned, at one-third of their income. Like the noble Baroness, I have been to see the Reuben homes in Peckham, and I was enormously moved. This cost-effective transitional housing solution has the advantage of not just supporting financial independence and reducing reliance on benefits but, most importantly, helping young people to build a stable future. It provides not just a roof but services, such as helping residents to get over the problems of unemployment, as well as education and other life skills.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, covered the obstacles to scaling this model nationally and the inflexible application of the national described space standards, the NDSS—there are all these abbreviations—which currently block these smart schemes from expanding. She mentioned the limitation of 34 square metres. These pods, as I would call them, are 24 square metres, but none of the young people complained about a lack of space. This amendment provides checks and balances for a limited and carefully designed exemption for accredited stepping-stone accommodation for young people while ensuring—I stress this—that there are still robust safeguards around design quality.

A transitional solution for two to five years, helping young people to settle into work, live independently and save money makes a massive difference to them moving on with their careers. The limited tenure of two to five years provides the push factor that makes stepping-stone homes a sustainable source of affordable housing. It is not just Centrepoint: several other charities are trying similar initiatives. For this reason, I warmly support this amendment, which effectively provides a crucial piece of the puzzle of tackling homelessness.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 184, to which I have lent my name. There is not much I can add to the eloquent and compelling case for it that has just been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord St John.

As I see it, the key point is about scaling up with necessary speed. While space standards can in principle be departed from, that requires negotiation and time, and there are concerns about the threat of judicial review, et cetera. The amendment would provide clarity and certainty that, for this specific kind of invaluable accommodation, the space standards do not apply. Bearing in mind that the space standards were not designed with this kind of accommodation in mind, because it has come afterwards, to my mind that would be a considerable advantage of this kind of accommodation.

I have looked at the draft and it seems to me to be watertight. There is no scope for other kinds of developers and developments to piggyback on to it and seek to avoid space standards for the kinds of developments that should be subject to them. So I urge the Minister to consider this amendment very carefully. I also emphatically endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne in relation to his amendment.

18:15

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, possibly it is suitable for me to go next, because I shall speak also to Amendment 184, just to conclude the debate on that.

Amendment 184 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who has presented it in such an engaging way that I hardly feel it worth any of the rest of us saying anything. She was nobly supported by my noble friend Lord St John and the noble Lord, Lord Banner. Centrepoint, the promoter of the amendment, is a highly respected homelessness charity, and its ideas for creating stepping-stone accommodation are innovative and imaginative.

When asked to support the amendment, I raised three queries and received some helpful responses that I will share with your Lordships, as others may have had similar thoughts to mine. First, I noted that the scheme depended on the young renters moving on to permanent homes in due course to make way for the next young person. But what if the acute shortages of affordable homes made this move-on impossible? The clogging up of short-term supported housing has been the undoing of many earlier such projects. In response, I was assured that these tenants would be supported by a visiting tenancy sustainment worker, who would not only help the young people to pay their rent and maintain their home but would help with move-on options.

Secondly, I pointed out that living in 24 square metres would not normally be regarded as tolerable. The national minimum space standard for a flat is 37 square metres, which is over 50% bigger. Was there a danger that this might be the thin end of the wedge, leading to more exemptions from the norm over time? Experience of the abuse of permitted development rights for property conversions into tiny slums shows us where this might lead. In response, it was pointed out that the circumstances in which the amendment would permit the much-reduced space standards exclusively for otherwise homeless young people were very tightly circumscribed, defined and limited—and I note that they get the seal of approval from the noble Lord, Lord Banner.

Finally, I wondered whether it would be more companionable for the young renters to be in a shared flat with three or four others with their own room but sharing a bathroom and kitchen diner. The reply was very convincing: Centrepoint had consulted widely with young people and those who had spent their time in local authority supported housing with communal areas and shared facilities, and they wanted space that was entirely their own responsibility. Small developments of 12 to 36 studio flats would mean young people living alongside each other while learning to live independently.

It would be up to local planning authorities as to whether any stepping-stone schemes emerged, but this amendment would make them a possibility. Centrepoint and maybe other charities should be enabled to take their model forward to its next stage, no doubt with further pilot schemes to test the concept. With these comments, I support the amendment and look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s deliberations. I say at the outset that Amendment 184 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lord Banner is eminently sensible, and there appears to be a strong consensus in its favour. I therefore that my Front Bench but also the Minister will give it a fair hearing and possibly support it, because it seems to be a great compromise.

I was fortunate when serving in the other place to support a very good charity called Hope into Action, with local churches banding together to buy residential properties for those in the most acute need, sometimes ex-offenders or people who were just generally down on their luck economically. However, I understand that that is very much a niche activity and it is not possible to buy freeholds outright, so you need this intermediate accommodation in order to give people a chance to get back on the employment or education ladder. So I strongly commend that amendment.

Principally, I want to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I am old enough to remember when the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 got Royal Assent. I declare from the outset—practically everyone declares this in this Committee—that I am another former vice-president of the Local Government Association, although quite some time ago. I was also a London borough councillor, and I had the good fortune to serve on the planning committee.

It should be remembered that the purpose of Section 106 was very much benign and supported by the community. It was essentially about whether expenditure was necessary, directly relevant to the planning application, and proportionate. It was absolutely the right thing to seek to ameliorate some of the impacts of residential development by providing community facilities such as schools, GP surgeries, community centres and transport infrastructure. Obviously, there was a distinction between the community infrastructure levy and Section 106. Of course, when I was a Member of Parliament and member of the borough council, those financial contributions made in support of affordable housing were very important. They obviously made a big contribution to the provision of decent housing in our borough and in my constituency.

The reason why I think this is an excellent amendment is that not all local authorities are the same. One of the frustrations is that, unless you are focused every day on trying to find the audit trail of funding from Section 106, when you have multiple stakeholders, landowners, local councillors and council officers—who often change over time—it is very difficult to follow the money in terms of what was actually delivered.

You often found in my experience that residential developments ended up with groups of homeowners or local residents who were very unhappy at, for instance, being members of a limited company and responsible for the management of their community areas. They did not want to do that; they just wanted a children’s playground, a bus shelter or a bus route, or a post office, for instance. Therefore, the openness and transparency that this very laudable amendment would give rise to would allow the distinction between good authorities which are putting much-needed money into local communities in a timely way, and those local authorities which are dragging their feet.

I accept that there is a distinction between preparing a local development plan and a county structure plan, et cetera. That is much more of a legalistic exercise, which has to be undertaken under various pieces of legislation. This is about keeping the faith and the trust of the local people you are interested in providing with very good local services, using what is effectively a tax—public money. Having the imperative of publishing that information on a regular basis would allow you in real time to account for why you have not spent that money, what priorities have changed and what the needs of the community as they evolve might be.

I cannot really see why there would be a reason not to do this. Irrespective of party in local government, whether it is independent, Liberal Democrat, Reform, Conservative or Labour—I think that is everyone; unless you are in Epsom and Ewell, and then it is ratepayers, bizarrely—everyone has an opportunity to make sure that that money is spent effectively and in a timely way.

For that reason, I support the amendment. I hope that, if the Minister rejects the amendment, she explains clearly why it is not possible to support it and incorporate it into the Bill. It is long overdue; it is what transparency campaigners in local government want, what local councillors want and probably even what planning officers want, providing clarity on expenditure. It would be a very good development, and I hope the Minister will support it.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. As I indicated in the previous group, I sat on the CIL review 10 years ago with Liz Peace, whom some noble Lords may know from the restoration and renewal programme, as well as Andrew Whitaker from the Home Builders Federation, which is probably where my noble friend gets his figure of £8 billion from.

When I was a council leader, we had three councils that came together in the Greater Norwich area, and we were early adopters on CIL. We were only the 12th area to do it, and we pooled our CIL, blind to the administrative boundaries between us, to try to make a step change in the amount of infrastructure delivered. Sadly, following the CIL review in 2017, few other areas joined the bandwagon, and now many areas are not in scope—they have Section 106. But in principle the community infrastructure levy has much to commend it, as it is quick, simple, clear and a lot more straightforward than Section 106. However, there are some problems, one of them being sufficiency.

What we discovered on the CIL review was that the amount of money generated by the CIL was probably some 15% of the total infrastructure requirement, aggravated in many cases by a large number of exemptions—self-built homes, offices converted under permitted development to residence, and so forth. There was a further aggravating factor, in that local authorities are not permitted to borrow against future CIL receipts as they are against Section 106. That made it significantly harder to get the big, chunky infrastructure done.

As a group of local authorities, we created the Section 123 list, where we listed all the things we expected CIL to fund—and there were sections on green infrastructure, social infrastructure, education, highways and community facilities, including libraries. More than 400 lines populated that Section 123 list, which was published annually as a big report, so that everybody could see what we planned to spend the money on. Of course, I support completely the principle of Amendment 170, but it does not go far enough. It is not enough just to say, “Well, this much money is being raised on this job, and that is it”. You have to balance it—not just with the money coming in but with what you plan to spend out on, and the cash flow. It is a simple truth that after you raise the money, and it is only 15%, the next work and the hardest work is leveraging that 15% in with other sources of money, possibly joint ventures and so forth.

CIL is about financing infrastructure, not just funding it. Financing is putting that deal together, whereas funding is just writing the cheque. It is really important that we help the public to understand and see that essential difficulty. Time does not permit describing all the ways in which we have tried to do that, but this amendment does not go far enough. We need to ensure the money coming in and the Section 123 list of the infrastructure going out, as well as the financing. The most important thing that this amendment falls short on is that it does not set the cash flowing—where do you see the money going in 2026, 2027, 2028 and so forth, in a 10-year rolling period? Unless you do that, just by publishing the amount of money that you have raised, there is pressure to get the money out of the door on less important projects with lower impact, which is where we found a difficulty.

By having a more thoughtful, five or 10-year rolling programme, which contains the income, expenditure and cashflow, you would also give clarity to the development community. If you wish, and if it is sensible to do so, you could make a substitution—take an investment in kind, if you will—instead of making an upfront cash payment. That can be very useful. If a new school, for example, is on the Section 123 list, and the developer is interested in it, the new school can help him sell his houses in a large development, but if the money is not quite there yet, being open, honest and transparent, in this more complete way, makes it clear how schools can be financed in kind by the developer, and sometimes you can leverage more in that case.

I support the principle, although I do not believe it goes far enough; we need a five or 10-year programme. In my area, we publish a comprehensive annual report, which includes all the lines—the income and the outcome. However, while posting the balance is useful, it does not tell the whole story. That is what we need to do to get the infrastructure built but also the public onside.

18:30

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, in another life, I had the privilege of taking through the then Planning Bill 2008, which introduced CIL. In this House, we had some very vigorous arguments, not about its purpose but about its methodology. I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord said about the subsequent review. With the support of my Front Bench, we were very proud to be able to lever that additional money for crucial infrastructure.

I have some sympathy for the amendment, because it is a confusing strategy in some respects. I would like to see CIL and local authorities getting greater credit, as well as for there to be more transparency around what developers’ funds go into. While I want to pay tribute to my earlier Government’s effort to raise these funds, I support greater transparency and clarity for developers as well as for local authorities and communities.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and congratulate her on taking through the legislation. At the outset, when she was taking the legislation through your Lordships’ House, she would have contemplated that CIL was going to carry the lion’s share of the cost of infrastructure. Sadly, that never turned out to be the case. To a certain extent, the areas that have had CIL have ended up in a worst-of-all-worlds situation, where they have some CIL but they also have Section 106. That is a disappointment. It has not reached the promise that we all wanted for it, because everything has become so much more expensive. As I alluded to earlier, the developers give up with CIL and just want to build the school themselves. In fact, they are probably best placed to build the school while they are onsite, mobilised and with the construction equipment all around them. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps forcing the council to build the school when they do not have some of that brownfield risk would have been an improvement.

I am getting off the point. In short, I support the amendment, but it needs to be embellished on Report.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, described Amendment 184 as compelling, and I entirely agree with him. In the interests of time, that is all I will say on that amendment.

I will briefly speak to Amendment 218, taking us back some time to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who has already introduced the idea of a review of land value capture. I am going to brandish a historical figure in defence of this suggestion. It may surprise the Benches to my right, because I am going to start by saying that I agree with Winston Churchill. That is not a phrase that I bring out very often, but I do in this context. In 1909, he said that

“the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts or at the centre of one of our great cities … sits still and does nothing. Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved, electric light turns night into day, electric trams glide swiftly to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains—and all while the landlord sits still … To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced”.

That was identified more than a century ago, but it exactly addresses the issue that still exists and that we have not come to deal with.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

He was a Liberal then.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Okay—I am not going to get that far into the history.

I declare an interest in that land value tax is a long-term Green Party policy and one that I am very happy to talk about at length, but I am not going to do that because it is not what this amendment would do. However, it is worth thinking about the fact that the problem with how we tax land goes back a very long way. There was a royal commission on the housing of the working classes set up in 1885; it was the first time that an inquiry had referred to land value taxation—it was called site value rating then—and it said that this would be a better way to solve a housing crisis. These are issues that we have been wrestling with and failing to solve for a very long time.

My final point is that this amendment by itself would not deal with the crunching, terrible elephant-in-the-room issue of council tax, but it would start to provide the Government with a way to open up these issues. This is all regarded as too politically difficult, too challenging and too complicated to explain—I know what it is like to try to explain land value tax in 15 seconds, because it is a challenge. We are now 35 years on from when council tax was created. It was an emergency crunch measure created by the Treasury after the political disaster of the poll tax. It is a deeply regressive tax. Someone living in a home worth £100,000 pays an effective tax rate five times as high as someone in a £1 million property. The average net council tax is only 2.7 times higher for the top 10% of properties than for the bottom 10%. This is something that we have to address. This amendment would not address all, or even the bulk, of it, but it would start to inch us into a space where we could tackle some issues that desperately need to be tackled.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have already debated some complex topics in Committee and the issue of land value capture certainly continues in that vein.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes, it does.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Yes—maybe we need a review of the Committee stage of this Bill.

I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for his amendment and agree with the spirit of his proposals. Greater transparency is positive, and most good authorities would have that information readily available. I can say that, for my own council, I could phone up and get a spreadsheet of exactly how much each development has contributed in my ward.

As an ex-chairman of the LGA, I just want to say something in defence of councils and the fact that there is a considerable sum, so to speak, sitting on the balance books. As an ex-leader, I know how difficult it is to get these big projects over the line. Even a good secondary school can cost £25 million or £30 million; you will be reliant on four or five different Section 106 payments for that, you will be waiting for grants, and you will have to get the land. These things can take three, four, five or six years. To go on to the topic of bypasses, that is an entirely different timescale. We should look not just at the quantum of money but at how difficult it is to pull these sums together and get things going.

I come to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, where I think that review might even address some of these timescale issues. The noble Baroness has raised a number of important issues, particularly around the delivery of infrastructure promised through development agreements, the use and protection of land set aside for community purposes and the broader question of how the public might benefit when land values increase sharply. I hope that the Government will reflect seriously on the principles raised and, in that spirit, I want to put a few questions to the Minister, which I hope she might be able to respond to today; if not, perhaps she could come back at a later time.

First, what assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of existing mechanisms, principally Section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, in ensuring that local communities receive the schools, highways, GP surgeries and other facilities promised? Too often, we hear of permissions granted on the basis that there will be improved infrastructure and then, over time, it is slowly whittled away and we find new housing without that infrastructure and communities having to cope with more traffic on the roads, more crowded GP surgeries, schools with portakabins and so forth. If residents see new developments going up without the infrastructure that they were promised, they will lose confidence in the planning system and will therefore fight every single development, which some of us do find. We need reforms that get trust back in the system.

Secondly, does the Minister agree that there is a risk that infrastructure commitments can in practice be watered down or renegotiated, leaving communities without these services?

Thirdly, on land value capture more broadly, does the Minister believe that the current system allows sufficient benefit from rising land values to be shared with the wider public, or does she see scope for reform, as envisaged in Amendment 218?

Fourthly, will the Government commit to reviewing international examples of land value capture—for instance, models used in parts of Europe or Asia—to see whether there are lessons that might be drawn for a UK context?

Finally, how do the Government intend to balance the need to secure fair contributions for infrastructure and community benefit while ensuring that development remains viable and attractive to investors? I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is important that we resolve them.

Moving on, Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raises a really important issue. We have a housing crisis and we need to look at all solutions that may resolve it. I commend her for once again placing the needs of young people at the centre of our deliberations. The question before us is a delicate but important one. It concerns whether planning authorities should be permitted to approve high-quality transitional accommodation for young people leaving supported housing or at the risk of homelessness in circumstances where our national space standards would otherwise disallow such provision. The case for doing so is strong. The housing crisis is not abstract; it is a real matter facing the young of today. Too many of them find themselves renting late into life, sofa surfing or returning to the parental home, not through choice but because there are no realistic alternatives. At precisely the stage in life when young people should be gaining independence, putting down roots, building families and contributing to the wider economy, instead they face barriers at every turn.

We are all familiar with the macroeconomic challenges of house prices that have outpaced wages, a lack of genuinely affordable starter homes and, in certain parts of the country, rents which are, frankly, extortionate. That is why the noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of stepping-stone accommodation, a flexible transitional model that can bridge the gap between institutional supported housing and permanent independence.

But, as ever in this House, we must balance principle with practice. I support wholeheartedly the spirit of the amendment, but I sound a note of caution. Our space standards were developed for a good reason. They exist to prevent the return of poor-quality housing, of rabbit-hutch flats, of homes that compromise health, dignity and long-term liveability. If we are to disapply such standards in certain cases, we must do so with clear safeguards in place. So, I urge that, if this amendment is taken forward, it is accompanied by precise definitions, strict planning guidance and a rigorous framework, to ensure that genuine transitional high-quality schemes can benefit from the flexibilities proposed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this group relating to community infrastructure, land value capture and space standards for stepping-stone accommodation.

I turn first to Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which would impose new reporting requirements on local planning authorities and introduce new mechanisms to ensure that works funded through developer contributions are delivered. The stories about the delivery of Section 106 and CIL are legendary. My two favourite examples were a bus stop delivered in an area that did not have a bus route, which was wonderful, and a playground that had not been built to safety standards that would ever allow it to be opened, so it never opened—it got closed again before it even opened. We get some nonsense stories like this, and I accept that that is not acceptable.

18:45

The Government recognise and support the aims of the amendment to ensure that communities properly benefit from the contributions secured from new development in a timely way. Developer contributions play a vital role in delivering much-needed affordable housing and local infrastructure that supports new development and, as a number of noble Lords have said, help the local community get some benefit from the housing.

There are a variety of reasons why an authority may retain financial contributions from developers, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to some of them. For example, the delivery of new on-site infrastructure may depend on certain trigger-points being reached during the build-out of new developments. Schools are a good example of this. I visited a site in Cambridge recently where the school was built, but it could not open because the numbers needed had not been triggered. Authorities may also combine developer contributions with other funding sources to deliver big infrastructure projects, and it can take time for such funding sources to accumulate and become available.

Nevertheless, it is important that local authorities spend contributions from developers effectively. That is why our department is providing funding to the Planning Advisory Service to deliver a targeted support programme to help local authorities across England strengthen their approach to infrastructure planning and the governance of developer contributions.

It is already the case that local planning authorities must report on their use of developer contributions. Any authority that receives a contribution through the community infrastructure levy or Section 106 must prepare and publish an annual infrastructure funding statement. This statutory requirement has been in place since the reporting year 2019-20. Publishing such detailed reports on developer contributions, which include the amount of money received and what it is being, or will be, spent on, helps local communities and developers see how contributions have been spent and understand what future funds will be spent on, ensuring a transparent and accountable system. Earlier this year, the chief planner wrote to all local planning authorities reminding them of their statutory duty to publish an infrastructure funding statement where applicable, and there is a template available on the Planning Advisory Service website to support local planning authorities to meet this reporting requirement.

Amendment 185L seeks to deal with instances in which community infrastructure secured through a Section 106 agreement—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I would be very interested to know whether the Minister has the figure—if not, she could let us know later—but I think the National Audit Office said 17% of local authorities had not submitted their infrastructure funding statements. I wondered if she had any update on that and perhaps would let us know how many have failed to disclose.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Lord predicts, I do not have the figure in front of me, but I will write to noble Lords and confirm what it is.

Amendment 185L seeks to deal with instances in which community infrastructure secured through Section 106 cannot be delivered as originally intended. In our view, this amendment risks unintended consequences which could hinder, rather than facilitate, sustainable development. I emphasise that local planning authorities can already take enforcement action if a developer fails to deliver on the obligations they have committed to in a Section 106 agreement, including failure to deliver community infrastructure where relevant. This may include a local planning authority entering the land to complete the works and then seeking to recover the costs or applying to the court for an injunction to prevent further construction or occupation of dwellings. This amendment would prevent the modification of planning obligations even where a change of circumstances means that the community infrastructure in question can no longer be delivered by the developer.

As I have set out, the Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions, including Section 106 planning obligations. To deliver on this commitment, we are taking a number of steps, including reviewing planning practice guidance on viability. However, we must have flexibility where necessary to ensure that development, where there are genuine changes in circumstance, can continue to come forward. We must also think carefully about the demands we are placing on local planning authorities, which may not have the capacity or resources to take on responsibility for delivery in the way this amendment proposes.

Amendments 185K and 220 focus on the development consent order process and strategic development schemes and seek to achieve the same outcome. The clauses proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would place a legal requirement on developers to deliver on commitments made to provide specified local infrastructure as part of their projects.

First, I want to express my sympathy with the spirit behind this proposal. We all agree that communities must be able to secure the infrastructure they need, especially when new development brings added pressure on local services and existing infrastructure, including schools, nurseries and GP surgeries. In particular, I acknowledge that the concerns that may be driving the amendment relate to the impact of temporary workers or additional traffic on local communities caused by large-scale infrastructure projects, which can remain under construction for significant periods of time.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the problem with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is that the viability of affordable housing changes all the time? Because there is a link between the viability of residential housing and community facilities, that amendment could lock in the development in a restrictive way—for instance, it might not allow off-site commutation of funding to fund other projects.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the noble Lord’s point, and it is of course important that we get the balance right between the delivery of the infrastructure as set out and having flexibility, so that when circumstances change, this can change too.

The amendments seek to focus on the issue by ensuring that commitments to delivering local infrastructure need to reduce the impact of a large-scale scheme. In responding, I have assumed that the reference to strategic development schemes is intended to relate to spatial development strategies, which are introduced through this Bill. These strategies, along with local development plans, set out infrastructure needs but are not applications and do not have developments attached to them. I agree strongly with the noble Baroness, and when it comes to large-scale new developments, the Government agree that delivering local infrastructure is crucial. If a project approved through a development consent order creates a need for local infrastructure such as roads, schools or drainage works, those needs can be addressed in two ways.

First, development consent order requirements, which are similar to planning conditions on planning permissions issued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, control how and when the development is carried out, and may require the approval of subsequent details by the local planning authority. These can be used in cases where changes to local infrastructure are needed to make development acceptable in planning terms. For example, if a developer is providing a relief road to mitigate an identified impact on local infrastructure as a result of constructing a large-scale infrastructure project, the necessary works can be detailed in the requirements. Relevant requirements may mandate subsequent plans—which outline proposed design, works phasing and traffic management—to be submitted to the highways authority, and these plans would then need to be approved and adhered to when implementing the development consent order.

Secondly, local infrastructure can be secured through development consent order obligations. These legal agreements can be used to require the payment of money as contributions towards the provision of local infrastructure, or to secure commitments to delivering that infrastructure. An obligation can be used to ensure that impacts on local infrastructure are properly taken into account and to mitigate identified adverse effects. The Secretary of State may take into account development consent obligations that meet the relevant legal and policy tests when deciding whether to grant development consent for the project. Once an obligation is enforced, it becomes legally binding and runs with the land, even if the land changes hands. A local planning authority has a range of enforcement options available to it if developers or the owners of the land, subject to the development consent obligation, do not fulfil their legal commitments.

While we fully support the goal of ensuring communities get the infrastructure they need, we believe the existing system already provides the right tools through legal requirements where appropriate, and these clauses would not add clarity or effectiveness to that process. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his series of questions. I will check in Hansard which ones I answered. If there are any I did not answer, I will reply to him in writing. However, for all the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 218 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of land value capture, including consideration of the merits of alternative methods of land value capture, within six months of Royal Assent to the Bill, and to report on the findings to Parliament.

I thank the noble Baronesses for raising this amendment. It is critically important that local planning authorities can capture a proportion of the land value uplift that often occurs when planning permission is granted in order to deliver affordable housing and the infrastructure needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Local planning authorities currently use the well-established and effective mechanisms of Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening this system, and we have chosen not to implement alternative proposals for land value capture provided for in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, such as the infrastructure levy.

The Government have already made important progress in delivering against this commitment. For example, through the revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 12 December last year, the Government introduced new “golden rules” for major development involving the provision of housing on land within or released from the green belt. Our “golden rules” aim to deliver higher levels of affordable housing alongside necessary infrastructure and accessible green space.

Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently in the other place, we are also legislating to give mayors of strategic authorities the power to raise a mayoral CIL alongside the requirement to have a spatial development strategy in place, enabling them to raise revenue for strategic growth-supporting infrastructure where this is balanced with viability. The department has provided evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee inquiry into land value capture, and we very much look forward to engaging with the findings and recommendations of that inquiry in due course.

Amendment 184, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seeks to exempt local planning authorities from applying the nationally described space standards on planning applications concerning the delivery of “stepping stone” accommodation. I also thank Centrepoint for its continuing and proactive support regarding the housing crisis among young people, and for its work on the Bill.

As helpfully set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her explanatory note, the thrust of this amendment is to promote accommodation for young people who are leaving supported housing or who are at risk of homelessness. I have delivered similar schemes to the ones she described through our housing first scheme in Stevenage, including some for young people with learning disabilities, which was a remarkable experience. It was a small development, but it was life-changing for those young people. The community they formed in that housing development was wonderful to see, so I do not need any convincing of the reasons for delivering schemes such as these.

I give my support to the principle of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and agree that regulation should not unnecessarily get in the way of providing safe and secure housing for our most vulnerable, particularly vulnerable young people. However, I hope I can reassure her that the amendment is not needed.

The purpose of the space standards is to provide guidance on the minimum area of new dwellings across all types of tenures, based on the number of bedrooms and bedspaces. The nationally described space standards are not set out in legislation, and they are not mandatory. It is at the discretion of local planning authorities to choose to adopt the space standards through their local planning policies where there is an identified need for additional technical requirements. As set out in planning practice guidance, when establishing a clear need for adopting the space standards locally, they must assess the impact on local viability and housing supply.

By law, planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Each application is judged on its own individual merit, and the weight given to these considerations is a matter for the local planning authority as the usual decision-taker in the first instance.

What constitutes a material consideration is very widely defined and it is for the planning decision-maker to determine what is a relevant consideration, based on the circumstances of a particular case. We feel this is best for local areas to determine on a case-by-case basis, rather than being dictated by central government. For example, if the local planning authority considers that the need for a particular housing tenure—such as “stepping stone” housing—would, when considering all relevant material considerations, outweigh the policy requirement to have that housing meet the optional space standards adopted in its local plan, it may grant planning permission. In short, the current planning framework—

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I absolutely understand what the Minister is saying but, given the actual experience—four years for planning permission—could we explore together a way of giving this a shove up the agenda and in some way make it a little better? It definitely feels as though there is a wall there that we need to shove a digger through. The Minister says it is there in legislation, but it is clearly not happening in practice.

19:00

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. As I explained, I fully understand the intention behind the amendment. I hope my explanations have reassured noble Lords sufficiently and I kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am genuinely always grateful when the Minister speaks at the Dispatch Box, as well as to all those who spoke in this group. It has been a good, illuminating discussion, and I like the ambition of my noble friends Lord Banner and Lord Jackson and my noble friend—I will call her that—Lady Andrews, my fellow committee member. I cannot remember what she subsequently said, but I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, called this an odds and sods group, but it did have two key components.

I liked that, at the beginning, it felt as though we had rediscovered the 2010 rose garden treaty, when the Lib Dem-Tory alliance was going strong—though my noble friend Lord Jackson should not worry. We are hand in glove on Amendments 220 and 170 and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and my noble friend Lord Banner was very good. I wholeheartedly support it; you have people with real experience who understand the complexities of the issue but, for those who need it most, it is worth trying to find a way to make it possible, and a load of work has been done on this already.

I think we should explore my amendment. I accept that some will say that it should be bolder and some that it should be weaker. I am afraid that I am not sure what the position of my Front Bench was—it is not the first time I have had that problem. I know that local authorities deliver and are under pressure, but 20 years is a very long time. As my noble friend Lord Banner said, it seems odd that, during this period, local people do not even know what is happening in their area. As I said, I know that there are infrastructure funding statements but, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, when 17% of them are not even being delivered we cannot say that the system is working. There must be some way that we can work together to find something to give the system a little nudge and remind and show people that there is some benefit beyond what is being put through development. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 170 withdrawn.

Amendment 171 not moved.

Amendment 172

Moved by

[Baroness Andrews]

172: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Conservation of the historic environment(1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is amended as follows.(2) In sections 16(2), 66(1) and 66(2), for “preserving”, in each place in which it occurs, substitute “conserving or enhancing”.(3) In section 72(1), for “preserving” substitute “conserving”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the fundamental inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and safeguarding heritage by encouraging desirable change.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel that I have been reprieved on this amendment. I will do my best to keep it short, although it is a bit technical. It is a proposed new clause. The Front Bench will be relieved to know that none of my supporters can be here; they are all in far better places and having a much better time, which will definitely cut down the time taken on this.

The amendment is supported and was mainly drafted by the Heritage Alliance, which represents 200 of the heritage bodies in the country. It is a very weighty amendment that has been extremely well thought-through by the umbrella body for the heritage sector. Who could resist an amendment drafted by such a public-spirited body? It is also in the spirit of the Bill. It is about freeing up growth and innovation through housing, public services and more besides. The clinching argument is that it would bring out-of-date legislation into current policy, guidance and best practice. I think the Minister can only commend this amendment, because it would bring clarity and confidence across the whole field of heritage and planning.

Briefly, national heritage planning policy is based throughout on the principle of conservation, defined in the NPPF, which we have heard about a lot on this Bill, as:

“The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances its significance”.


The definition goes back decades. It was pioneered in America and we incorporated it into English Heritage’s conservation principles when I had the privilege of being its chair in 2012. It was incorporated into the NPPF in that year too. It has meant in practice that conservation has become the lodestar of heritage practice, encouraging and enabling the repurposing of historic buildings into working spaces for today’s students, crafts men and women, housing families and organisations, while retaining the character of those post-industrial towns and their buildings which means so much.

Anybody who has watched “The Great Pottery Throw Down” will know Middleport Pottery, which was rescued at the very last minute, supported by the King, and restored to all its glory. There is the marvellous work on St John’s, at Waterloo, which has kept its extraordinary heritage and community activities and so on. There are hundreds of outstanding examples. Were the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, here, he would talk about historic farm buildings and the contribution they make to the continuing character and vitality of the countryside.

What needs changing? Lurking in the planning legislation is a residual leftover from another age, when the object of heritage was to preserve and not conserve. Let me explain. The concept of preservation dates back to the 19th century, well before there was any consciousness of what historic buildings might be used for. There was then a binary choice: knock it down and lose it or preserve it. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 was the attempt to provide legal protection for the first time. That concept of preservation against loss prevailed for a century and it remains at the heart of the planning system. In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is still a legal presumption in favour of preservation. This amendment seeks to bring planning policy and guidance into line and substitute the phrase “conserving or enhancing” for “preserving” in each of the relevant subsections.

Why is it urgent to do this now? Every listed building consent and planning decision near any listed building, and every planning decision in England’s 10,000 conservation areas, must explicitly give special regard to “preservation”, not “conservation”. Planning law overrides and outranks policy and guidance, so this planning legislation can have a chilling effect on imagination, innovation, and the creative use of rare and useful buildings, working against the possibility of housing, public services, leisure and much else.

This is not some nit-picking attempt to tidy up legislation. Heritage is not a peripheral issue in planning. We are an old country, with lots of stuff, and a third of planning applications involve heritage. But heritage is now so often seen, and can be seen in the Bill, as blocking change—a lazy reaction. At a time when we are looking for economic growth, and growth in housing and services, this prejudice prevents the right sort of change and growth. It is bad for the past and bad for the future.

Take town centres, for example—which our Select Committee recently looked at. They are robbed of their original purpose and yet still recognisable in the churches, civic buildings and law courts which make up the heart of the community. They may have lost their original purposes but they are immensely useful buildings which can transform community engagement. They are ripe for repurposing for local authority services, diagnostic medical centres, craft workshops and galleries —all it needs is imagination and the change in the law that we are proposing in this amendment. Historic England estimated that 670,000 new homes could be created in England alone by repairing and repurposing existing historic buildings.

This is an obvious and timely change to make and is extremely discreet. It is a very limited amendment and would have no damaging implications for any other form of legislation. It would simply remove the inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and ensuring that heritage becomes part of the wealth of the future as well as the past. I really hope the Minister will support this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, heritage assets, as we have heard, are not simply buildings or sites of historic interest; they are living reminders of who we are, where we come from and the values we wish to pass on. Turning to the amendments before us, in Amendment 172 the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raises an important and interesting issue—the inconsistency, as I understand it, between heritage policy and heritage legislation. I am keen to hear the Government’s reflections on this matter and whether they believe that an amendment of this kind is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the system. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and I would love a conversation about this with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.

Turning to a series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as he so often does, he has raised some significant, thought-provoking issues. We worked tirelessly on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act. Anything that helps to get on with the commencement of some of the key aspects of that legislation would be most welcome. In that context, Amendment 182, on the commencement of provisions concerning the duty to have regard to heritage assets in planning functions, is of particular importance. Ensuring that heritage is properly taken into account in planning decisions is a safeguard for the future as much as a means of showing respect for the past.

We also hear what my noble friend says in Amendment 185C, which proposes that national listed building consent orders under Section 26C of the 1990 Act be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That seems a practical suggestion, and I hope the Government and the noble Baroness will consider it carefully. Heritage is, after all, not about blocking change but about managing it well and ensuring that the past informs and enriches the future. These amendments, in different ways, all seek that balance model.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their amendments. Amendment 172 would align the terminology of the listed buildings Act with that of the National Planning Policy Framework. It also seeks to encourage desirable change which will benefit our heritage assets. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, the use of the word “preserve” in heritage legislation is long standing and supported by case law. Case law, in particular, has emphasised that if a decision-maker follows the policies protecting designated heritage assets in the NPPF, including giving greater weight to their conservation, it will have discharged its duty to have special regard to the preservation of a listed building. I am wary, therefore, of changing the wording to “conserve”, as doing so might create more uncertainty and lead to further legal challenge when the position is settled in case law.

As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which are the subject of Amendment 182 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seek to introduce the term “enhancing” into heritage legislation. My noble friend Lady Taylor has met with the heritage organisations and the DCMS once in the past, and we are committed to meeting them again before Report.

I now turn to Amendments 182 and 183, which both seek to commence provisions in the 2023 Act. I reassure the Committee that the Government have not forgotten about these provisions. We are continuing to consider our approach to heritage planning policy in the context of the wider planning reforms, including further revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework. We will keep implementation of the 2023 Act heritage measures under review as part of that work.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 185C, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which would make national listed building consent orders subject to the negative procedure. My noble friend Lady Andrews, especially, but perhaps also other long-serving Members, will recall that it was the intention of Parliament that national listed building consent orders be subject to the affirmative procedure. This was largely in response to concerns raised about the power and breadth of discretion given to the Secretary of State.

The noble Baroness commented during the debates on the 2013 Act:

“There is concern that a general national class consent order, saying something about the works that could be done to listed buildings without consent, could not conceivably be so sensitive that it did not have some perverse or damaging consequences”.—[Official Report, 14/11/12; col. 1545.]


Therefore, we need to be very cautious about changing the procedure to the negative procedure without significant engagement with the heritage sector and others. With these explanations, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.

19:15

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend’s reply. I will of course withdraw the amendment, but it is rather disappointing. I am very glad that the Minister has met with the conservation and heritage bodies. They have a view about this, which is why they framed the amendment as they did. Although I accept the argument, there is a point in thinking again about whether we need to align this legislation and guidance, for the reasons I gave.

There is a wider argument. There are other aspects of heritage protections that are now very much in the frame for change. It is four or five decades since we had heritage legislation. The 1985 Act is well out of date. We need new heritage legislation. When the Minister meets with the heritage bodies again, perhaps she could ask them what they think of that idea and whether they would have an interest in framing new heritage legislation which makes more sense of where we are in terms of how we now regard historic buildings in their setting, and their purposes. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 172 withdrawn.

Amendments 173 to 185E not moved.

Amendment 185F

Moved by

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

185F: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Local plan compliance with Habitats Regulations assessmentsWhen developing a local plan, a local planning authority must consider whether the plan complies with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012) and conduct full environmental impact assessments for all sites being proposed as suitable for development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable local plans to guide developers towards sites most appropriate for development and speed up and simplify the subsequent planning application process by conducting Habitats Regulations assessments at local plan stage, rather than individual planning application stage.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the House satisfaction by saying “Not moved”. Like my noble friend Lady Andrews, I feel that it is bad enough tabling amendments to your own Government’s Bill, but I am doing it when the whole House wants to go home. Also, all my supporters were expecting this to come up next week as part of the Part 3 discussions and have all gone off to do whatever it is that they are up to. My noble friend Lady Andrews has got the inside track on that. It really is a big order. I will try to be brief, but I actually regard these amendments as probably the most important ones that I have tabled to the whole Bill. Perhaps this debate can be regarded as a warm-up act for the main discussions on EDPs and the nature restoration fund next week.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, in his absence—I think that he is off fishing—for putting his name to my amendments. I am very grateful for that. These three amendments are a package, to be taken together, as they outline an alternative approach to Part 3 of the Bill by seeking to tackle the real blockages that are being experienced by developers, not by throwing the habitats regulations baby out with the bath-water but by streamlining the way they are implemented.

The habitats regulations have been portrayed as significant blockages to development and that needs a bit of unpicking. First, they cover only internationally important habitats and species that need and deserve the highest level of protection. Secondly, some see them as gold-plating by the European Union, but it was actually us Brits who invented the habitats regulations and negotiated them into the rest of Europe. They are pretty fundamental to the protection of those habitats and species that are the feedstock from which nature restoration is fed.

Thirdly, many developers and others are clear that nature issues are not actually the biggest cause of delays to development; they come quite a long way down the lists that developers have, behind the lack of planning, resources and skills in local planning authorities, behind the same problem in the various regulators and consultees and behind the inbuilt reluctance of developers to build out sites. We have extant planning permissions for 1.2 million homes that have not been built and we have heard tonight about delays that have happened as a result of CIL and Section 106. I gather that, at the moment, building safety requirements as a result of the Grenfell Tower event can delay planning permissions for up to a year. So it is not just the habs regs that are a problem, as is sometimes the impression you would get from Part 3 of the Bill.

I have put forward these amendments against that background of seeking to resolve these real problems, knowing that next week we will hear considerable and more detailed concerns from others about how EDPs and the nature restoration fund will work; and that is in spite of the very useful amendments that the Government have already put down following the Commons stages to meet the significant concerns expressed in the other place and to respond to the criticism by the Office for Environmental Protection that Part 3 represents a regression from current standards.

So I am not the only person concerned about the Part 3 proposals. Indeed, a recent legal opinion by David Elvin KC, subsequent to the laying of the government amendments, concluded that, even with these changes, Part 3 represents a regression on environmental standards that could be in breach of international law. That is the context.

I will briefly lay out these three simple amendments, which offer an alternative way forward. Amendment 242A would restrict EDPs to only those issues where approaches are required at a strategic landscape scale in order to be effective. These are issues of nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resources and air quality—the issues that developers are most worried about. EDPs would not be put in place for individual species issues. There are already good models, such as the newt district licensing scheme, which work and often involve leveraging private sector investment. These private sector investors already see EDPs as undermining their schemes and chilling investment. So development of further species schemes along those lines is perfectly possible.

Amendments 185F and 185G would tackle other concerns about the habitats regulations beyond the four priorities that are listed in Amendment 242A by moving the requirements to comply with the habitats regulations substantially upstream to spatial development strategies and local plans. This would mean that, by the time developers came forward with planning applications on specific sites, the heavy lifting of habs regs, surveys and assessments would have been done at the spatial strategy and local plan stage. This would have the added benefit of guiding developers towards the simplest sites for development, where there would be least opposition, reducing unnecessary conflict and simplifying the planning application phase considerably.

I have talked to developers, both housing and infrastructure, about these proposals, and to the environmental NGOs. They believe that they could be made to work. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am very supportive of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Roborough. I would actually encourage the noble Baroness to retable Amendment 242A, if she is allowed to, because I do not think we will have deliberated on it—I am sure the Public Bill Office can advise—and it will work well, as she says, next week.

On Amendments 185F and 185G, the noble Baroness made a very good point. This is one of my wider frustrations with aspects of people using certain things, certain regulations or “the nature” as an excuse. As the noble Baroness has well laid out, quite often it can be a factor: there are things that can change—rulings and decisions about licensing. The abstraction of water is one example I have used before when talking about the impact—that happened at Sizewell C. Nevertheless, one of my wider points would be that, if you really want to accelerate a lot of infrastructure, do not start planning to build stuff in a place that has already been designated as the most important for nature in this country; find somewhere else, and think it through. One reason why quite a lot of people move to certain places in the country is that they are beautiful, environmental places. I do not want to go over Sizewell C, and I will keep to the point of the regulation, but this is really a way to future-proof and to get a lot of this infrastructure flowing.

There are things that we could get into about which species are the right ones to consider in habitat regulations; there are other debates forming about whether we should look after only things that are really at risk. That does not necessarily work. We have already heard today about the importance of global biodiversity and chalk streams, but I think this is a very useful amendment.

I am glad that we are doing at least part of the debate today, because it will give the Government time over the weekend to think about whether their modest proposals in revising Part 3, which are welcome, really go far enough to help local communities, local developers and local councillors so that we can move forward. By getting rid of some of these unnecessary arguments, we would have the homes and the development that are much desired, and we would still have places, right around our country, that are special for nature and special for our planet.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on Amendment 185F, tabled by her and supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough. I do not need to talk at length, because the noble Baroness has set out excellent arguments for progressing this and other amendments. She said that this is one of the most important amendments in the Bill, and she is right. We are touching on it today in advance of next week, when we will discuss this and similar improvements.

The noble Baroness has set out a simpler solution than the massive bureaucracy created in Part 3. Part 3 and the EDPs are a massive sledgehammer to crack the nut of nutrient neutrality. With the amendments that we will discuss next week in addition to this one, we can offer the Government a simpler solution than the EDP monolith. We need to tackle the problems of nutrient neutrality and will address some of the amendments next week.

Amendment 185F would require local planning authorities to consider compliance with the habitats regulations and to conduct full environmental impact assessments on sites that are proposed as suitable for development. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, let us plan this in advance—do not wait until developers come along to put in a planning application and then discover that they are trying to do it in the wrong place. This is not about adding a new layer of bureaucracy; on the contrary, it is about moving necessary assessment upstream to where it can do the most good.

Too often, local plans identify sites for housing or infrastructure which turn out to be wholly unsuitable when subjected to proper ecological scrutiny. By then, the damage is done: developers are frustrated, communities are confused and valuable habitats are placed at risk. This amendment from the noble Baroness would support local authorities to screen out inappropriate sites early, giving greater certainty to developers and the public. It would also help to ensure that sites allocated in the plan were truly deliverable. It is, in short, a sensible and proportionate proposal, reflecting long-standing principles that plan-making is a stage at which big environmental choices should be made and that doing so reduces conflict and costs later on. I hope the Minister will take the advice of our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. As I said earlier, she is an expert on this matter, no matter how much she may deny being a world expert.

19:30

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, supported by my noble friend Lord Roborough would shift the process for habitats regulations assessment from the level of individual planning applications to the local plan stage or, in the case of Amendment 185G, the spatial development strategy. I appreciate this amendment. It is in line with comments I made earlier about EDPs, which should be part of the spatial development strategy, rather than separate. The whole point is moving things upstream and doing them once for the whole area rather than having to have multiple assessments with each planning application. We had comments earlier about the sheer bureaucracy and the difficulty of some of these planning applications. My noble friend Lord Fuller is not in his place, but he made a point about smaller applications being burdened with large amounts of paperwork that could be done as part of the local plan.

The intention is clear: it is to guide developers more effectively towards sites most appropriate for development and to speed up and simplify the subsequent application process. That is a constructive alternative approach to how we currently handle habitats assessments, and it merits serious consideration.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, have the Government assessed the benefits of carrying out work earlier in the process? If not, will they commit to doing so? Secondly, how can the Government ensure that local authorities have the capacity to do that and that duplication is avoided?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Young for her amendments on habitats regulations assessments. Amendment 185F seeks to ensure that local plans are in compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and that the local authority preparing the plan carries out full environmental impact assessments when proposing sites for development. It is important that the environmental impacts of a local plan are properly assessed as part of their preparation, arrangements for which are set out in existing legislation.

All local plans are already required to undertake a habitats regulations assessment where they have the potential for impacts on a site or species protected under the regulations. In addition, all local plans are required to carry out an assessment incorporating the requirements of a strategic environmental assessment where a local plan will result in likely significant effects on the environment. This obligation is for a strategic environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact assessment, as the latter requires in-depth information about a specific development proposal—information that will not generally be available at the plan-making stage. However, any development that comes forward subsequent to the plan’s adoption that, due to its size, nature or location, is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will require an environmental impact assessment. With this reassurance about the way that environmental impacts are considered during plan preparation and in support of its implementation, I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

In Amendment 185G, my noble friend raises an important issue about how habitats regulations requirements will apply to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already applies the assessment requirements under the habitats regulations to spatial development strategies. This means that strategic planning authorities will be required to carry out habitats regulations assessments where necessary, bringing new spatial development strategies in line with the spatial development strategy for London. The proposed amendment would require full assessment of specific sites allocated within spatial development strategies, yet the Bill expressly does not allow them to allocate specific sites. It will therefore not be possible for strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments for specific sites as part of SDS preparation. This would need to happen, where needed, later in the planning process.

Amendment 242A would limit the scope of environmental delivery plans to a narrow list of environmental impacts on protected sites: namely, nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I share my noble friend’s desire to ensure that EDPs are used only where they can be shown to deliver for the environment. This is why the Government sought to clarify their position in the recent government amendments, which highlight that the Secretary of State could make an EDP only where the conservation measures materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature. That ensures that EDPs could be brought forward only to address issues that would benefit from a strategic approach and would deliver an environmental uplift that goes beyond the status quo position required under the current system.

With the assurance that an EDP would be made only where it would deliver that environmental uplift, we feel it is right to allow EDPs to be brought forward to address the range of environmental impacts set out in the Bill. Limiting types of environmental impacts that EDPs can address would remove the ability for EDPs to respond to other environmental impacts that may result from development, where a strategic approach could deliver in line with the overall improvement test, especially to protected species. With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the Opposition Front Bench for their support for my amendments. The Minister has expressed concerns that environmental impact assessments can happen only when there is a specific site concerned. I have some detailed working papers that I can provide to Ministers, and talk them through, showing how that could be bridged to do the maximum amount of work on a preparatory basis at local plan level before any final touches were applied when a site was up for proposal. Perhaps I could share those next week.

On the overall improvement test, the reality is that it is probably possible to demonstrate—although I have not had time tonight—that the process of overall improvement and the issues that would be most amenable to that are going to be the things that can be resolved only on a strategic basis at landscape scale. We are arguing from two ends of the same spectrum, really: the Government are saying that EDPs apply to everything but that they have to meet these tests, which would actually restrict the things that EDPs could be used for, while I am arguing that we probably know right now what the restrictions would be, so why not put those in the Bill? I am sure we will come to resolve some of these issues when we have the real run at these points next week.

My message is simple. Let us make sure we are focusing on the real blockages. Let us recognise that Part 3 has flaws. Let us take my three simple steps, with some of the elaboration that I have promised. Let us reduce conflict, reduce costs and speed development. But at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 185F withdrawn.

Amendments 185G and 185H not moved.

Amendment 185I had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 185J to 185M not moved.

House resumed.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with amendments.

House adjourned at 7.38 pm.