NHS: Wheelchair Services
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the provision of wheelchair services by the NHS and social care authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, integrated care boards are responsible for the commissioning of local wheelchair services based on the needs of the local population. NHS England has developed policy guidance and legislation to support ICBs to commission effective, efficient and personalised services. This includes a Wheelchair Quality Framework, published in April, which is designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers in delivering high-quality provision that improves access, outcomes and experience.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but does she recognise that the work by the Wheelchair Alliance and the All-Party Group for Wheelchairs Users would suggest that, if you leave this to local health bodies and local authorities, they simply will not improve the current inadequate and patchy service? The All-Party Group for Access to Disability Equipment has reported that
“63% of carers and 55% of equipment users said that services are getting worse”.
Given what my noble friend said about the quality framework, which I very much welcome, does she accept that nothing will change unless this is enforced from the centre, with strong performance management?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I accept the observations that my noble friend has made; I know he has been a voice on this for many years. I share with him the impatience for change and welcome the work of the APPG and the Wheelchair Alliance. The NHS Medium Term Planning Framework, which was published just in October, requires that, from 2026-27, all ICBs and community health services must actively manage and reduce the proportion of waits across all community health services over 18 weeks and develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. I expect that wheelchair provision and services will improve through this as well as other means.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Can the Minister comment on whether we keep any statistics in relation to people who have to stay in hospital who avoid discharge because of the length of time taken to get wheelchairs?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be pleased to write to the noble Baroness about the specific data that is available, but we know that, because of issues to do with aids and adaptations, sometimes people’s leaving hospital is not as timely as it should be. That is not in their interests. We certainly expect local authorities, for example, which have a statutory duty, to make arrangements to do so and also for ICBs to make the provision so there are not the hold-ups that the noble Baroness refers to.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the NHS provides the funding for wheelchair access, but the wheelchairs are mostly necessary in community settings and in the home, and there is a gap between social services and the NHS using different criteria to assess the health needs of the patient. What are the Government going to do to address this so that people get the service that they need?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The provision of the right type of wheelchair is crucial, but we also need to expand care options to boost independent living at home. We have done that in part through an additional £172 million for the disabled facilities grant, which goes hand in hand with people being able to live at home. This could enable around 15,600 extra home adaptations. Introducing care technology standards for those who are using wheelchairs and those who are not will also enable proper care standards and independent living.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the conference chair of the National Association of Equipment Providers. As a teenager, I pushed my mother everywhere in a wheelchair; we had to buy it second hand through the Liverpool Echo. Wheelchair provisions have improved greatly since then, but how can the Government work with the Wheelchair Alliance and with trade associations to ensure that retailers have skilled clinical staff who are trained to undertake assessments and prescribe appropriate wheelchairs and other forms of assistive technology?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The points that the noble Lord has raised are crucial—not least that, as I alluded to earlier, one type of wheelchair does not suit everybody. That is why I am keen to see the results of the Wheelchair Quality Framework, which, as I mentioned to my noble friend, was published in April. That sets out quality standards and statutory requirements, including offering personalised wheelchair budgets, which would assist in the circumstances that the noble Lord describes.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a frequent wheelchair user and as a member of the all-party group. Some concerns have been expressed that the competition for contracts for wheelchairs is very limited and that a number of wheelchair providers are not even submitting their names to be considered for those contracts because they feel that it is not worth their while. What action are the Government taking to ensure that there is sufficient choice within the NHS and that the market is large enough to ensure that companies will actually bid for those contracts?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is a very important point, not just for the supply chain but also for the technology, particularly if we are thinking about those with more complex needs; the wheelchair has to support and meet those complex needs. We know that there is a lack of investment in new models and that there has been disruption in the supply chain. While I do not seek to blame, that was a particular issue arising out of the pandemic. We are indeed working on better technology in terms of wheelchairs and other aids and adaptations and seeking to iron out difficulties in people making bids for contracts. If the noble Lord has examples, I would be very pleased to hear about them.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the problem, which carers often report, of being unable to return the wheelchair to its source when it is no longer needed?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend raises a point that applies not just to wheelchairs but to other aids and adaptations. There is indeed a very considerable issue. That is a matter for local services, but it is absolutely something that we will work with them on as part of how we improve services, because it also includes the safe and timely return.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as well as the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about NHS wheelchair services, we know that, in addition, there are over 1 million wheelchair users of different types in the UK, and we know that people still face considerable difficulties in accessing health and social care buildings. Of course we understand that some buildings are old and will have to be retrofitted, but what specific conversations is the department having with charities, expert groups, owners of buildings and developers to raise awareness of the need and how to improve access, particularly for those older buildings?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is right, and his comments about buildings apply not just to NHS buildings either but to the whole range. I can assure the noble Lord that across government we have continuing discussions about this, because it is not, as the noble Lord says, just a matter of getting the right wheelchair; it is also about them being accessible in terms of the buildings. It is also the reason that I mentioned to his noble friend about adaptations to people’s homes so that wheelchairs can be used there too.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that the need is often not identified until the person is heading for discharge from hospital, whereas if it was foreseen at a much earlier stage and there was proper co-ordinated planning between health and social care, a great deal of these delays could be reduced? Will the Minister do all that she can to improve the relationship between health and social care at local level?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would certainly agree that timely provision of wheelchairs and other aids and adaptations does support people not only to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible but to leave a hospital setting if that is in their best interests. We now have the better care fund as a framework for integrated care boards, the NHS and local authorities to make joint plans and to pool budgets for the very purpose the noble Lord mentions, which is about delivering better joined-up care. That can indeed include wheelchairs. That is a very systematic approach, doing exactly what the noble Lord is requesting.
Brain Tumours: Causes and Treatment
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Mattinson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the scale of research into the causes and treatment of brain tumours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, research is vital to ensure that people get the most effective treatments and the highest quality care. We are committed to furthering investment in brain tumour research: between 2018-19 and 2023-24, NIHR invested £11.8 million and UKRI invested £46.8 million in this area. The new NIHR brain tumour research consortium does promise a step change, with further announcements being imminent. In addition, the national cancer plan will seek to improve every aspect of cancer care, including outcomes for those with brain tumours.
Baroness Mattinson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but I want to press for more urgency to beat this terrible disease. Brain cancer is now the biggest killer of children and adults under the age of 40 in the UK. Behind every statistic is a person, like my old friend Georgie Maynard, a mother of three who received her own devastating diagnosis two and a half years ago. Georgie has co-founded the Brain Cancer Justice group, and she is here today. She wants to know why the UK’s brain cancer survival rate ranks only 22nd out of 29 wealthy nations, why just 1% of the cancer research budget is allocated to brain cancer, and why only 12% of people with a brain tumour are able to participate in trials. In particular, the whole-genome sequencing is vital for brain tumour research, yet just 5% of brain tumour patients can access it.
Last September, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission published its recommendations. Will the Minister agree to review these recommendations and meet with the Brain Cancer Justice group to discuss how they can be incorporated?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the opportunity to meet Georgie just before Questions. I am happy to write to my noble friend with answers to all those questions. On the last two, yes, we continue to work very closely in partnership with the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission to drive further progress against its recommendations. I will certainly speak with the Minister who deals with this area—Ashley Dalton MP, who is currently ensuring that the cancer plan can be published at the beginning of the forthcoming year—about the suggestion of a meeting. We have very much engaged with the cancer community on the cancer plan, and we continue to be keen to do so.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for promising us a cancer plan by the beginning of next year. I hope it will be forthcoming, because it will be good to look at how cancer care will change. Regarding brain tumours, the problem is that the symptoms are often vague and mild, so early diagnosis is much more difficult. We need more research into the early diagnosis of tumours. Furthermore, we need much more research than the numbers mentioned by the Minister. One of the success stories, one hopes, in 2026 will be drug gene therapy and viral immunotherapy, which will be put through clinical trials early next year to treat glioblastoma, the major brain tumour killer. I hope we will have more funding, because £30 million, £40 million or even £50 million will not do.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I want to convey to the noble Lord our ambition in this area. I completely accept the point he makes—although not all of them—about the challenge of diagnosing rarer cancers, including brain tumours. Research is absolutely vital. Last September, we announced new research funding opportunities, bringing the brain cancer research community together, because we want to drive step change for patients in the way the noble Lord seeks. Funding decisions will arise from this call, and announcements are expected imminently.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my son survived a brain tumour, but he was lucky, because in the UK between 40% and 60% of brain tumour diagnoses happen after the patient has arrived at A&E, having often been misdiagnosed—to follow on from the noble Lord’s question—earlier. That is a much worse outcome than many for other cancers. As the Minister said, brain tumour cancers are the leading killer of people under the age of 40. Will she therefore commit to a public awareness campaign to explain some of the difficult symptoms the noble Lord just identified, and the seriousness of brain tumours? Such awareness is sadly lacking among the public.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I take the point the noble Lord makes, and I am sorry to hear of his son’s—and of course his family’s—experience. One of the things we are working on is increasing public awareness of brain cancer research opportunities. That is not quite the same as the point the noble Lord made, but extending that through the NIHR’s “Be Part of Research” initiative is important. The national cancer plan will give us the opportunity to review what communications and campaigns we run with the public. That will be a good opportunity to consider the point he makes.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Georgie’s brother is Charlie Maynard MP, who has been campaigning on this. One of the issues raised is that in the UK it takes significantly longer to open a clinical trial for these patients than in most comparable nations, due to the excessive administrative burden. Will the Government therefore commit to looking at a fast-track designation for trials involving cancers with unmet needs, such as glioblastoma?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We certainly do need to cut more red tape on cancer treatments. For example, we recently accelerated patient access to ultrasound cancer treatment through our innovative devices access pathway pilot. That is just one way in which we will have the potential to help companies, which is crucial to bring game-changing cancer treatments to fruition and to NHS patients even faster.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is important to recognise and praise the treatment that is already available while challenging to do more? I was diagnosed with a benign tumour and the treatment was exemplary. On the real upside of this, I have a lot of documentary evidence that I have a brain.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I have never doubted that about the right reverend Prelate, but I am sure that the whole of your Lordships’ House is very pleased that he is with us. It is absolutely right and proper to pay tribute to all those in the whole system who provide care, treatment, diagnosis, research and so on. It is a team effort, and I am glad that he has benefited so well from it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, being diagnosed with a brain tumour is devastating not only for the person involved but for their family. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe said, brain tumours can lead to memory loss, cognitive changes and reduced physical ability. Those symptoms are sometimes not picked up beforehand, but even when someone is diagnosed with a brain tumour those very symptoms sometimes lead to misunderstandings among friends and family members, and can lead to isolation. Given this, can the Minister outline what steps NHS England and the department are taking to raise awareness among families and friends of all the symptoms and side-effects of brain tumours, so we can avoid those misunderstandings and ensure that the patient continues to receive care from their loved ones?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is an important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised. As I said, the national cancer plan will give that opportunity to address challenges and needs such as those the noble Lord raised. We are also establishing a brain tumour research consortium through the NIHR, which will bring together researchers from different disciplines. The scientific advancements it will drive will be how to prevent, detect—to the point raised by the noble Lords—manage and treat brain tumours. That will also be of great assistance.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the Government should be congratulated on trying to improve their work on brain cancer. Talking about treatment, one of the issues is that one of the greatest advances and most important areas is brain imaging using magnetic resonance imaging, PET scanning and even electrical recording in a sophisticated way, but access to these important technologies still seems somewhat deficient. Will the Minister say whether the NHS has plans to increase access to brain imaging? It seems a very important area in treatment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We certainly want to see services properly available across the country and people not being disadvantaged because of where they live or what the services are. Again, from what I know of it—we will soon see it—the national cancer plan will improve every aspect of cancer care, including outcomes for those with brain tumours and access to the services my noble friend outlines.
Non-Crime Hate Incidents
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the decision of police forces to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents, whether they plan to abolish them altogether.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the review’s final recommendations shortly and will decide future policy following consideration.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. He may not be aware that in 2023 I was charged with a non-crime hate incident. Thanks to my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who is in his place, and the Free Speech Union, we managed to fight it and get it dropped, but, by some estimates from Policy Exchange and others, some 60,000 hours of police time are used every year in investigating these, and innocent men and women are criminalised. My main concern is that, from Questions that I have tabled, neither the Home Office nor police forces can tell us whether any of this has led to any serious crimes being solved or prevented. Is it not time for the Minister to abolish these altogether?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I have indicated to the noble Baroness, we are awaiting the report, and it is fair, if we have commissioned a report, that we wait to see its recommendations. However, an interim report in October of this year said that non-crime hate incidents were not fit for purpose. Her noble friend Lord Herbert, who is the chair of the College of Policing, has reported to this House on the recommendations to date, and we will have those shortly. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that non-crime hate incidents do not appear on basic or standard DBS checks, so she is not criminalised by her close proximity to a non-crime hate incident on her own accord.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, non-crime hate incidents, even if they are not investigated but recorded, are a good way of assessing the rising levels of hatred in society. For example, increasing levels of anti-social behaviour appear to be linked to hate crime. Can the Minister tell us whether mechanisms are in place to show what levels of anti-social behaviour are linked to hate crime, and what levels of anti-social behaviour are linked to anti-Muslim hate? I am happy to have that information in writing if he does not have it to hand.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that one of the purposes of non-crime hate incident assessments is to assess whether there are potential problems or challenges in a particular area. Last year, for example, 44% of religious hate crime offences targeted Muslims, while 24% targeted Jewish people, and there were 82,490 race hate crime offences. That is useful information, but the questions are: what do we do about non-crime hate incidents generally? Should we record them? Do we follow them up? Do they lead to prosecution? Are they a good use of police time? However, the evidence gathered by some of that information is valuable, which is why the College of Policing and the police chiefs’ council are making a genuine assessment, having already said that the non-crime hate incident regime is not fit for purpose.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, it will be a sad day when police stop investigating non-crime hate incidents. In the last 10 years, I stood for Parliament twice, and I was the victim of such incidents both times. Non-crime hate is an early warning sign of what is happening in our society so that police and the politicians can keep an eye on it. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, there are robust mechanisms in place to deal with harassment, racial prejudice and other forms of harassing and abusive and threatening behaviour. The key element of a non-crime hate incident is that it does not reach a threshold of a crime incident but is, in essence, a method of collecting information. For example, in my noble friend’s case, if there were persistent and regular non-crime hate approaches that did not reach that threshold, it might well indicate to the police that there were other aspects of community cohesion behaviour they needed to investigate. The review will decide what happens in terms of police activity following up on a range of matters, and that is what we are awaiting shortly with some interest.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, inspections by HMIC have found that about one-quarter of non-crime hate incidents are recorded incorrectly, with many people wrongly included. Following several reviews and repeated government assurances, can the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will finally establish a clear and publicly accessible appeals mechanism for individuals who believe they have been wrongly recorded as being involved in such incidents?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that question from the noble Baroness. The issue is that non-crime hate incidents are not currently fit for purpose. That includes a range of mechanisms relating to how the police interpret that, what they do with the information and indeed whether any information is collected incorrectly. I would love to give an answer today, but it is important that we listen and work with the police on the review they have commissioned. That will be with me shortly and, when it is, we will be able to come to some definitive conclusions and put a regime in place that meets the noble Baroness’s objective of assessing anti-social behaviour and racial concerns, as my noble friend has mentioned, but does so in a way that does not lead to mistakes, does not lead to false use by the police and is not a waste of police time in collecting that information.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but, to pick up on the points made by my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch, non-crime hate incidents are just one of the instruments used by the police to investigate online speech. Open-ended and subjective language in legislation such as the Public Order Act 1998 and the Communications Act 2003, and unclear guidance, are also used to chill free speech. Given the public’s view that crime is on the rise, do the Government not agree that legislative changes need to be made, and that guidance and leadership need to be crystal-clear that the police should stop policing online speech and start solving real-world crimes that have a genuine effect on people’s lives?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has a point. Guidance for these incidents was put in place by his Government in 2023, and it is that guidance that has proved ineffective and led to the review. We are looking at the framework for this. We have commissioned the College of Policing to look at it, as well as the police, who have to deal with this matter and who themselves have said that the regime is not fit for purpose. We hope then to be able to update the guidance, depending on what the police and the College of Policing come forward with.
I challenge the noble Lord’s contention that crime is rising. In many areas, crime is falling; murder rates in London are at their lowest levels for many months. Crime is falling generally, and the work that we are doing to put extra police on the ground will help improve community support and community action on crime. However, we will wait for the review and report back to the House in due course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and I, have tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to try to remove non-crime hate incidents. I understand why the Minister has to give the reply that he gives—because a review is ongoing and the Government do not want to get trapped by it—but the danger is that we end up with an inconsistent approach, even if it is improved. At the moment, we have a situation where the Metropolitan Police is no longer investigating non-crime hate incidents, yet 42 forces are. Is there not a risk that following the review we will end up with more inconsistency, not less, when people are crying out for this to be resolved?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Metropolitan Police has said that it will still record information collected from non-crime hate incidents, which is in line with the code of practice introduced by the previous Government in 2023. Ministers decide on issues, but we have commissioned a review of the 2023 guidance which is being undertaken by former colleagues of the noble Lord at a senior level in the police: the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing. It is important that we receive their review and then we can determine whether we agree with the recommendations. Ministers decide, but we have commissioned a review, and it is important that we allow it to report.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, over the past two years, we have seen levels of antisemitism reach new highs, and while some antisemitic hate speech reaches the criminal threshold, it can also be sub-criminal. Does the Minister agree with me and organisations such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust that documenting such incidents is central to building an intelligence picture of hate hotspots and that a simple renaming of these incidents to “intelligence reports” would help a great deal?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important use of non-crime hate incidents. As I said earlier, there have been 82,490 race hate crimes, 7,164 religious hate crimes and a range of other offences falling within that. One reason why it is helpful is that it guides where other government resources can go, such as the £70.9 million available to protect faith communities, including, regarding the issue that my noble friend mentioned, the £18 million to the Jewish community protective security grant. It has an important function, but we have to assess it in the light of the use of police time, which is what this review is about. However, my noble friend’s point was very well made, as was that of the noble Baroness, that it helps secure an intelligence picture.
Fair Funding Review
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the pressures on local authorities to deliver additional housing and employment growth are factored into the Fair Funding Review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
We have already taken important steps to ensure that local government is able to support our Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, to tackle the housing crisis and to kick-start economic growth. The Fair Funding Review 2.0 reforms further incentivise these ambitions through an inbuilt reward in the council-tax calculation and the business rates retention scheme. We understand that local government is at the heart of delivering our growth and housing missions. More details will be published at the provisional settlement later this year.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Additional housing and commercial property come at a cost to councils in both capital and revenue terms, and more than that raised by the additional council tax. Can the Minister explain why this Government are removing the incentive of retained business rates, which will force many councils—which have done the right thing and supported growth—to raise council tax to the maximum and cut their services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is very important, particularly now, that we support local government, after 14 years of successive funding cuts and the battering it came under from the last Government. Through our funding reforms local authorities will be empowered, as key partners, to meet the housing need and help deliver growth across the country. We will reward local authorities for housebuilding, as they will benefit from additional council tax rates for each new house built in their area over the course of the multi-year period. On business rates, we will keep long-standing incentives so that local authorities continue to be rewarded for growth. Through their fair funding review, the previous Government recognised the need for reform, but they did not deliver. We are making good on this commitment and introducing improvements for the first time since 2013.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has just explained that council tax projections for new homes will not now be included in the financial assessment for council income. However, those councils with high deprivation and low economic growth are likely to have below average rates of housebuilding too. Can the Minister explain why the Government are willing to penalise those areas once again?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not agree with the presumption in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. For too long, an outdated council funding system, based on decades-old data, has entrenched the inequality of which she speaks—we all know that—with those least able to raise council tax and business rates given less favourable funding settlements. This has left some councils on a cliff edge and communities in deprived areas facing service cuts and rising bills, as well as being unable to deliver the economic growth and housing that we know those communities need. Some councils in less deprived areas have benefited disproportionately, building up their reserves. Our reforms will reverse this injustice and make sure that councils will be funded fairly, enabling them to deliver for their communities on services and on the growth that we all want to see.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In the part of Devon where I live, there are half a dozen separate building projects. As far as I can see, almost none of them is doing much in the way of affordable housing. What are the Government doing to encourage affordable housing in all such projects?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, may be aware that the Government have allocated an unprecedented £39 billion of funding for a new social and affordable homes programme. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme as social rent. This is really important in both urban and rural communities to make sure that we are able to allocate social and affordable housing in those areas. We will be enabling councils to use their right-to-buy receipts to pair up with the funding from the social and affordable homes programme.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that government funding and support should be based on need and should take into account the ability of the local authority to raise its own resources locally? During the last 13 years, this was moved away from. Are we going back to a similar system to that which operated for many years?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that we need to make sure we realign funding with need and deprivation so that local authorities can deliver for their communities—as I said, the services that are needed and the economic growth that they need. The vast majority of councils with social care responsibilities will see their core spending power increase in real terms over the multi-year settlement. We will publish our response to the fair funding review and the policy statement and set out our plans for the first multi-year local government finance settlement. That is really important because it gives councils the certainty they need to plan over the medium to long term.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, while councils will benefit from increased council tax from new homes being built, the cost of providing services to those new homes will not be included in the baseline funding level unless and until there is a reset. Can the Minister tell the House how frequently the Government will undertake that reset so that the cost of providing services to homes is built into the baseline funding level?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Lord the exact answer to his question now. We have said that creating this multi-year funding settlement will help local authorities to plan for the future. We will keep in constant contact with our local government community to make sure that the changes we are making are made on up to date data—we have looked at a completely new dataset for the indices of multiple deprivation—because the data that was being used was not up to date. The Government will be working closely with local authorities as we move this forward to ensure that it is delivering the change we all want to see.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, local authorities remain the biggest funders of arts and cultural services. These are important for growth and employment growth, yet since 2010, spending on these areas, alongside heritage, tourism and libraries, has decreased by more than 50%. While recognising that there are many important pressures on local authorities, will the fair funding review allow for proper reinvestment in this significant area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I very much agree. I have seen on the front line how cuts to local government funding have affected so much the provision of social activities, culture and leisure in our communities. It is very important that local government has the ability to make provision for local communities in those areas. What happened was that the harder it was for a local council to raise funds, the more they seemed to be penalised through the system. The more deprived a community was, the less likely they were to have the headroom to deliver the kinds of services the noble Earl speaks about. We need to change that, and we are working on reversing that.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the reasons so many local authorities are failing to meet their housing delivery targets? What steps are being taken to support them in doing so?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The first thing we did was restore the mandatory housing targets because, first, it did not make any sense to us. We wanted to deliver an overall target across the country but we were not saying what part in that each local authority played. Secondly, we know there are a lot of pressures facing local planning authorities. We have invested £46 million in this year’s funding to strengthen the capacity and capability to deliver planning reform to enable local authorities to meet their housing targets. We have made a commitment to recruit 300 additional planners, alongside wider planning policy changes—we will be discussing these later this afternoon—and legislative changes. That will help us deliver the housing and economic growth our country desperately needs.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my experience as a councillor was that builders and developers would often promise a percentage of social or affordable housing within their building projects and then somehow fail to do that. Are there enough penalties for builders who do that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We continue to explore this. It is very important that local authorities are able to set in their local plans the targets that they think are appropriate for their local areas. We will continue to explore with local authorities, particularly as we roll out the funding for social and affordable housing, whether there is any more we need to do to make sure that housing is delivered to the targets that each local authority has set itself.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 19 November.
Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, there have been many reports over the weekend that progress is being made towards a peace deal for Ukraine, and I am sure the whole House will welcome that. However, does the Minister agree that this cannot be based on the leaked plan, which read more like a list of Russian talking points than a serious set of proposals? What role are the UK Government playing in those discussions, rightly, as one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters? In addition, recent history has cruelly demonstrated that no agreement with Russia is, frankly, worth the paper it is printed on without robust and durable security guarantees. So can the Minister confirm what discussions the Government have had with the US and other European states to help to provide those credible long-term commitments?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords will know, talks are continuing today, and it is not the Government’s intention to provide any kind of running commentary on this, and I know that that noble Lords would not want us to do that. In answer to the noble Lord’s question, he can be assured that the UK and our partners and allies in the European Union are taking part and doing everything we can to bring about the lasting and just peace that we all wish to see.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the UK Government have been closely working with the Bring Back Kids organisation and providing much needed assistance. Looking at the additional support that is very much needed, parliamentarians who have visited Kyiv recently have pointed to the need for greater collaboration between intelligence services on the tracing of those stolen children and financial assistance to support the interrogation of the data. Both those things could make a real difference. What consideration are the Government giving to these proposals?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Speaking personally and for the Government, I think that the removal of 20,000 Ukrainian children is one of the most horrific elements of this whole awful war. We are doing everything we can to work with our partners and allies, even as far as working with celebrities or anybody who can bring attention to this and put pressure to see these children returned home to where they ought to be. Several hundred have returned, and we are helping to support them with the psychosocial support that they very much need. We know that these children are held in around 400 different locations. This is complex and difficult, but it is incredibly important, and our focus will remain—as the noble Baroness would want it to be—on seeing these children returned home.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the role that the Government are playing, particularly the creation of the coalition formed with Canada. I know that Minister cannot comment on leaked reports, but nevertheless we welcome that this is a specific provision within the proposed plan. Can the Minister assure us that the coalition will be fully leveraged and also harness the efforts that Qatar has been making in this important aspect as well?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord often reminds us of this, and I share his admiration for the work of the Qataris, not just in this process but in many others too. They are exceptionally successful, and I admire their work. Yes, we will. The noble Lord knows, probably better than many others in this House, that we are very reluctant to make any kind of comment while these negotiations are so live and are moving. The work that we undertake alongside other members of the coalition of the willing—he mentioned the Canadians in particular—will be sustained for as long as it is needed.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, will the Minister respond to two questions? First, on the real impact of sanctions, they do not seem to have diminished in any way Russia’s ability or intention to pursue this war of attrition and the cruelties that have already been mentioned, particularly in relation to children. Secondly, as someone who was a Soviet military specialist in a previous career, I can say that their aim is not to punish children but to wipe out a generation’s memory and retell a story. The effects of that, even if children are brought back at the end of this war, are going to go on for a generation. Have the Government given any consideration to how the rules-based international order can be effectively used to counter this and prepare for that longer term future?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for his knowledge and experience and the care and consideration that he brings to this and other matters. I know that he will soon retire from this House, although I hope not entirely from these issues. He is absolutely right to remind us that the removal of children, horrendous as it is, was not just to use children as a pawn in this conflict; it is absolutely about diminishing the identity of Ukraine and removing all vestiges of its own sovereignty. For so many reasons, we will continue to work to see these children returned. I look forward to continuing to work with the right reverend Prelate in future on these and many other issues.
Lord Swire (Con)
Last week, some of us were privileged to hear the testimony of two former Ukrainian prisoners of the Russians here in this House—we listened to their harrowing testimony. Can the Minister reassure us that in any peace deal articulated by the Americans or with the EU, the egregious infringement and abuse of human rights through torture, false imprisonment and everything that goes with it will not be lost in any settlement, and people will be pursued, if necessary to the International Criminal Court?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Accountability and responsibility for breaches of international humanitarian law and atrocities matter a great deal to this Government, and we will not compromise on that in any situation. As for what this agreement may finally look like, I hope that there is one because we all want to see a lasting peace sustained. The negotiations at the moment are between the US and Ukraine, with the support of the United Kingdom and others, but what matters more than anything, in order to get that sustainable peace, is to hear the voices of the Ukrainians and for the peace agreement, whatever it might look like, to be something that the Ukrainians can accept.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Should the present negotiations fail, which one hopes they will not, one of the few big levers that Europeans have, as distinct from Americans, are the frozen assets. We have been particularly poor at utilising that. Have we been putting in place mechanisms whereby, should the negotiations fail, we can use those assets for the benefit of Ukraine to show Putin that this is really not a game worth playing?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very mindful of what the noble Lord says. We have heard calls from across this House and in the other place encouraging us to move on this. The fundamental premise of this, which the Government support, is that whatever happens and however it is done, it is for the Russians to pay for the rebuilding and to repair that which they have had such a role in destroying.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
As far as I can see from the press on what is happening in Geneva, and indeed from the States, no mention of children was made as one of the situations that should be regarded. Has the UK put this forward?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am reluctant to get into dissecting the 28-point plan and the things that have been put forward. The issue of children has absolutely been raised, and it is vital that those children are returned. That is the position that we and everybody else constantly make clear throughout any discussions.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, what is the Government’s strategy if it becomes apparent that the only deal the United States of America will back is one that legitimises the theft of children and land?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I cannot imagine that that would be the case. I know that the noble Lord has a personal close interest in this, and I understand completely why he is pushing me on it, but I am not going to get into what we would or would not do and what other people may or may not accept as an outcome. I am happy to say again that I think the return of these children is not something on which anybody wishes to compromise.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister, recognising how sensitive it is at the moment to ask questions, say something about where we are with a coalition of the willing? Given that periodically the USA indicates that it will not allow NATO to go in certain directions, there is a case for the coalition of the willing to be around and even to be able to deal with other issues that might come along. Given that we have so many younger people unemployed, could we conceivably try to make a link between the two?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not sure that I understand the very last point that my noble friend made about young people being unemployed, but on the coalition of the willing, that has proved useful and will continue to be vital as we move this forward because the discussions that are taking place at the moment are between the USA and Ukraine, but it is vital, for this to be lasting, that there is a broad network of support around whatever is agreed and, as I say, that must be agreed primarily by the Ukrainian leadership and actually by the people of Ukraine.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments 2 to 21, including Amendments 19A and 19D. It is a pleasure to return this Bill to this House; I very much appreciate the support and engagement of noble Lords throughout its passage.
Let me turn first to the government amendments in the other place, other than the minor and technical amendments, which are there for clarification. We have clarified the duties on NHS bodies to make arrangements regarding advance choice documents, otherwise known as ACDs. NHS bodies must actively inform individuals about ACDs, rather than taking a minimal approach. The Bill requires that information and help are provided to people who wish to make an ACD through discussion with a suitably qualified person. NHS bodies should consider the advantages of making an ACD within 12 months after discharge and aim to provide support. Additional guidance on these duties will be in the revised code.
I thank my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for raising concerns about the unequal application of the Human Rights Act. The Government have now made it so that registered private providers delivering Section 117 aftercare or in-patient mental health services, funded by local authorities or the NHS, are treated as carrying out public functions under the Human Rights Act and act compatibly with the convention rights. This amendment will apply UK-wide.
I turn to the amendments made by this House on police powers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady May, for her constructive engagement and for establishing the review of the Mental Health Act when she was Prime Minister, which has brought us to this place today. We have removed the amendments made to Clause 5 that would have added police and other authorised professionals to Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act. Extending police and other authorised professionals to these sections would be inappropriate—a view that is shared by the police.
We have removed Clause 50 from the Bill, which would have extended emergency police powers under Sections 135 and 136 of the Act to other authorised persons. Health and care professionals lack the training, equipment and access to rapid back-up needed to use such powers safely, and stakeholders are concerned about staff having the authority to use reasonable force. A blanket extension of powers to multiple agencies would risk confusion and delay in emergencies due to a lack of clarity over who should respond.
There are strong views on either side of this issue, and there are situations where health professionals feel that they do not have the powers they need. That is why I am announcing longer-term plans to launch a consultation into emergency police powers of detention. We will consult on the powers available to different professionals in different situations and settings, in particular—but not limited to—the operation of the emergency powers in Sections 135 and 136. The consultation will seek views on powers and joint working approaches to ensure that health and social care professionals and police have the appropriate powers to act in order to prevent people harming themselves and others when in a mental health crisis. We firmly believe that this is the right approach to a complex issue that requires careful consideration and consultation.
I turn to community treatment orders. Clause 6(3) has been removed from the Bill, as CTOs already comply with the code and have an initial six-month period. The responsible clinician may renew a CTO if there is a risk of serious harm without it and a reasonable prospect of therapeutic benefit. Following positive engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I can confirm that the Government will review the statutory forms that relate to CTOs, with the aim of strengthening them to ensure a clear audit trail of the reasons for applying a CTO and associated conditions.
Regulations will require that statutory care and treatment plans specify any CTO conditions and their justifications, which will also be clarified in the code. We will work with the Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure that the patient’s plan is considered alongside other evidence at tribunal hearings. We will clarify in the code that, where a tribunal recommends that the responsible clinician reconsider CTO conditions as it does not consider them necessary, the responsible clinician should review and, potentially, revise those conditions. The code will set out that the responsible clinician should inform the patient of their decision after considering the tribunal’s recommendation, which should be recorded in writing. We will engage on the code before publication and involve the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in the process. As the tribunal is responsible for considering all relevant evidence, this may include recent recommendations made at past tribunal hearings regarding the conditions placed on the person, including the detail and rationale of any current conditions.
I can confirm that since September 2025 we have increased the quantity and frequency of reporting on racial disparities in key metrics, such as detention CTOs and length of stay by ethnicity. Much of this data was previously published annually but it is now published monthly, allowing for closer monitoring of progress. The data is publicly available on the Mental Health Act annual dashboard and, along with implementation of the patient and carer race equality framework, will be used by the Care Quality Commission as part of its inspection regime.
On the debriefing amendment, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for their constructive engagement. We have removed Clause 35, which required independent mental health advocates to consult people about their in-patient experience after discharge. This removes policy duplication and additional strain on advocacy services, whose focus is on supporting detained patients’ rights. The code will clarify the processes of care planning. Supporting someone to make an advance choice document should include the opportunity to reflect on past experiences. The 10-year health plan commits to making patient feedback central to quality improvement.
The Government have tabled amendments in lieu regarding the appointment of a nominated person for a child under 16 who lacks competence, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her continued work on this. The Bill now states that an approved mental health professional, or AMHP, must appoint either
“a person who has parental responsibility … a person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the relevant patient is to live”
or
“a person who is a special guardian”.
If there is no suitable person willing to act, the AMHP must consider the child’s wishes and feelings when deciding who to appoint.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, to the Government’s Motion, I understand the intention to prevent a parent who has had parental responsibility limited from being appointed as a nominated person by an AMHP where a child lacks competence to make the appointment. The amendment tabled would mean that a special guardian or person named under a child arrangements order as someone with whom the child must live must be appointed. It is not appropriate for legislation to say that a particular individual must always be appointed nominated person. If they are not able, or even willing, to perform the role effectively, requiring them to take this role and ruling out other options risks harming the child’s interests.
As we know, legislation can be a blunt tool. It is far more appropriate to set out nuances such as this in the statutory code to ensure that the child’s individual needs are considered. That is why we previously agreed to set up an expert task force to consider these very complexities. Part of this role includes ensuring that clear guidance is given to AMHPs on who to appoint in a range of scenarios to avoid unintended consequences. At this late stage, in order to get this right, we should not be hurriedly working through these complexities as part of the legislation. We should develop detailed guidance, in consultation with professionals and patients, through drafting the code of practice. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords will support our position and pass the legislation without amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 19D in my name. I thank the Minister and her officials for the frequency of their engagement on the Bill. I put on record my apology for not spotting possible issues with the Government’s Motion, to which I have tabled the amendment, much earlier. I thank the Minister and her officials for meeting with the approved mental health professionals, the professional group dealing—often late at night or at a weekend—with our sickest children, who do not have the competency to appoint a nominated person for themselves.
I specifically recognise the inconvenience to the Bill team, but this matter relates to the protection of mentally ill children and has been flagged at every stage since the Wessely review in 2018, when a consultation was suggested. In recent meetings with the Minister, I understood that what was to be achieved was that the appointment of nominated persons would reflect existing court orders made by the family court on child protection grounds. The mischief that the approved mental health professionals want to solve is that they do not want to have any discretion to appoint as a nominated person anybody not in accordance with an existing court order. They want to see this achieved through the mandatory appointment of the special guardian in priority to anybody else, the rationale being that special guardianship is usually used to avoid care orders, adoption or long-term fostering.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, first, I am very grateful to the Minister and her officials for the interaction and the many discussions we have had on the matters posed in the amendments I originally put down to the Bill on the powers of the police and the possible extension of some of those to authorised professionals, including healthcare professionals. I am also grateful to the Minister and the Government for agreeing to the review and consultation in relation to the exercise of powers, not simply those in Sections 135 and 136 but the general exercise of powers between police, healthcare professionals and other authorised professionals.
I have a number of questions about that review, but before I come to them, I hope I can crave the indulgence of the House just to cite a couple of examples of what is concerning me about the powers. Often, people go to the situation in which there is a real threat—a risk of violence or of danger to those exercising powers of restraint—but actually there are other issues. In moving the government Motion, the Minister referred to the fact that there are indeed some concerns among healthcare professionals, as well as among police, about the exercise of these powers. One situation might be if a patient presents to a GP in an evident mental health crisis, the clinician determines an urgent assessment is needed and the patient is advised to attend hospital voluntarily, but they are unwilling to do so and there is no other available alternative statutory pathway, so the police are contacted in order to exercise their powers under Section 136. It is not that the police are needed; it is just that they are the only people who have the power at the time. There is not necessarily a need to restrain somebody; they are just the only people who have that power.
The other circumstance might arise in an accident and emergency department, where a patient is identified as requiring hospital admission for mental health care, but the individual attempts to leave before an approved mental health professional or a second assessing clinician is available or a bed is found, the emergency department staff have no statutory authority to prevent the individual’s departure, and they ring the police for assistance. In the joint Home Office and DHSC review, which reported in 2014, there was evidence of this. Dr Beale said:
“A police officer has more power in that situation than I do. How can I excuse calling the police to my department to assist in mental health care? … We want to reduce the involvement of police in mental health care, not invite it”.
I am sure we are all agreed that we want to ensure the best possible pathway and experience for the person with mental health problems, we want to reduce the use of police resource, and we want to improve the policing of communities, because the police officer required to attend unnecessarily a mental health patient is a police officer taken off the policing of their local community.
So my questions are, will the review ensure that it also looks at the evidence given to the review that reported in 2014, which, among other things, showed that 93% of paramedics agreed with extending the Sections 135 and 136 powers to remove a person to a place of safety to other professionals, provided that they are trained and equipped? What is the timeline for the review and consultation? I would like it to be something like six months. Which department will be running the review or be responsible for it? I think it should, again, be a joint Home Office and DHSC review. What happens at the end? If it identifies a need to extend these powers or to add healthcare professionals to the list of authorised professionals, will the Government guarantee to undertake that, and what vehicle would they use to do so?
Once again, I am very grateful to the Minister for the discussions we have had, and I would just like to be clear on these points.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to put on record my thanks for the collaborative spirit of the Minister and her officials when discussing the issue of community treatment orders.
This issue came about during the passage of the Bill, in the context of the balance between mandatory community treatment and deprivation of people’s freedom in the community; people who seemed always to be in the revolving door and could not get off a community treatment order; and in particular racial disparity.
The Minister has moved forward, and it really is about that balance between the power of the individual patient and the clinician. Where the Government have got to in discussions is a “stop and check” for the clinician—having to think about why the extension of the community treatment order is required. If the tribunal says that certain conditions of a treatment order should not be established or be part of a patient’s treatment, the clinician has to stop and think and will be mandated through the code of practice to explain why that happens.
I very much welcome the offer to consult both myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and involve us in redrawing the code of practice. It is important that within that code of practice, words such as “must” are used, rather than “may”, which would give the clinician the discretion to not write things down as much as is required when people’s freedom is being taken away.
Again, I thank the noble Baroness and her officials and look forward to getting that balance absolutely correct to stop the revolving door.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, officials and Members of the other House for Amendment 12, which will ensure the human rights of patients who are placed in the private sector under NHS contracts. Many of us were concerned about that, but the situation is completely resolved through Amendment 12.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I had an amendment in the area covered by Amendments 1 to 4 at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I just wanted to put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, for her tenacious pursuance of this issue, and the discussions which followed. I also want to thank my noble friend the Minister for taking the right step in having a full consultation on the issue. As she said, there are strong views on both sides. There is a need for some change, but clearly, full consultation is the right approach.
Perhaps I can also take the opportunity, even though the issue does not arise directly, to mention again the “Mental Health Crisis Breathing Space” and the fact that although it is not in the Bill, it will be in the MHA code of practice. I just hope we get there sooner rather than later.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the position taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. The question of who should be appointed as a young patient’s nominated person has been thoroughly explored during this Bill in both Houses. Everyone agrees that some clarity is required in an area with a variety of different factual scenarios. Either selection of the nominated person can be left to the discretion of the approved mental health professional, with or without some guidance, or there can be some statement or indication in the Bill of priority or preference as between potential candidates.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I want to acknowledge the extensive discussions about how the Act will apply to people with learning disabilities and autistic people. We know that Clause 3 will not be switched on until sufficient community support is in place. Developing the right community support is key to ensuring that people with learning disabilities and autistic people are supported well in the community and not inappropriately detained.
On Report in the other place, Minister Kinnock committed to work with people with lived experience and other stakeholders to set out a road map for change. The excellent House of Lords Select Committee report, Time to Deliver: the Autism Act 2009 and the New Autism Strategy, which was published yesterday, also calls for
“a clear timeline and roadmap for strong community services to be put in place, so that provisions in the Mental Health Bill to prevent the unnecessary detention of autistic people and people with a learning disability can be commenced”.
When will the Ministers begin meeting people with lived experience and stakeholders to develop the road map? What progress have His Majesty’s Government made in determining what sufficient community support is and how this will be assessed, particularly given that in October there were still more than 2,000 autistic people and people with a learning disability in hospital in England, 92% of them being detained under the Mental Health Act? According to NHS Digital data, only 19% of local areas have achieved the March 2024 target to reduce the number of in-patients. It is worrying. Are ICBs on track to meet the 2026 target of a further 20% reduction?
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I entirely support my noble friend Lady Berridge. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, this is a really important issue in relation to my noble friend’s amendment. It is unfortunate that this issue was not put out to consultation because there is a lack of clarity. It would be otiose to repeat anything that either noble Lord has already said, but I urge the Minister—and I know she is a very good listener—to consider this issue a little further, given that this moment for the child or young person is so critical. Unless there is clarity, unless it is in the Bill and unless this issue of discretion versus mandating to support the role of the AMHPs is sorted out in the primary legislation, it will be very difficult to reflect that in any statutory code of practice.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, in welcoming government Amendment 12, which says:
“A registered care provider is to be regarded for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 as exercising a function of a public nature in providing any of the services mentioned”.
I am particularly pleased to see that the Government and the other place accepted this point, because it reverses the effect of a decision of the Appellate Committee of this House in 2008, YL v Birmingham City Council, in which I was the unsuccessful counsel for the unfortunate applicant. At the time, I took comfort from the fact that, of the five members of the Appellate Committee, the two who dissented in favour of my client were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and I am very pleased that their approach has now been accepted by Parliament. The point was summarised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. She said that it is a function of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act when the function is performed pursuant to statutory arrangements, when it is performed at public expense and when it is performed in the public interest. It has taken 17 years, but the law has got there in the end.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I start by adding my thanks to the Minister for her extremely constructive engagement throughout the Bill and particularly in recent weeks, as we have discussed community treatment orders and strengthening measures to monitoring racial disparities. My noble friend Lord Scriven has already covered the former, and I simply want to say that I am very grateful for the steps that the noble Baroness has taken to strengthen those measures for monitoring. Looking at racial disparities was, after all, the underlying rationale for this piece of legislation, so I am very glad that we are now going to have monthly reporting that we can access through the database and the dashboard—that is very good news. We will most certainly be scrutinising that data very carefully on these Benches and drawing any areas of concern to the attention of the House.
Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It is long overdue as an important step in ensuring people’s dignity and human rights, but we also recognise that it comes amidst a very challenging landscape for mental health services more broadly. We all know the serious shortcomings in current mental health services. Throughout the process of scrutinising the Bill in both Houses, we have urged the Government to back calls to invest in community mental health services and to produce a clear, costed implementation plan with clear timescales. We consider that very important because our outstanding concern is that the Bill on its own does not include adequate measures to promote preventive and early intervention services to stop people reaching crisis point and all the issues that we have discussed during this passage of the Bill.
We have been very glad to contribute to the Bill. It constitutes the biggest piece of legislation on mental health in 40 years. In the same vein, it could be the case that we do not have another major piece of legislation for another 40 years. I hope that is not the case, but these Bills do not come along very often. That is why we are determined to push the Government to look beyond the relatively narrow scope that this Bill has offered, to include community-led preventive care rather than simply focusing on helping people as they reach crisis point.
It has been a very important piece of legislation. I would like to thank the Minister again for her extremely constructive engagement and the tone she has set throughout this Bill. I would like to thank all noble Lords, from these Benches and from all Benches, for their extremely well-considered and very expert and heartfelt contributions. Last of all, I would like to thank officials, the Bill team and Adam Bull in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I too start by thanking the Minister, her officials and her special adviser for their constructive engagement on the Bill. The Bill has been returned to us from the other place without the amendments made in this House. Obviously, I would have preferred it if those amendments had remained in the Bill, but I understand that the Government believe that they are not necessary.
Amendments 1 to 4, and 11, remove the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead and tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Howe on Report, which would have allowed a wider range of people to undertake detention under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act. I thank my noble friend Lady May for giving specific examples of why that was called for.
I understand that there were two main concerns with those amendments. First, some were concerned about setting a precedent beyond the Bill for being detained by personnel who are not police officers. Secondly, some of the health professionals who would have been affected by this change felt that they had not been properly consulted. I am therefore grateful to the Minister and her officials for suggesting a consultation on whether these powers could be extended. It is good that we are going way beyond just this and having a wider consultation.
Amendment 6 removes Clause 35 from the Bill. It was inserted after a successful Division on Report and was moved by my noble friend Lord Howe. It was intended to ensure that those who are detained and given treatment for their mental health receive a proper debriefing after their discharge and that the system can learn and not repeat the same mistakes. My noble friend mentioned the experiences of young people who felt that they were not being listened to, but during our meeting with the Minister, she agreed to outline at the Dispatch Box how the Government would ensure that more is done to listen. We welcome the assurances she has given.
Another question we raised was on patients having a right to an advance choice document. We would of course have preferred that to be in the Bill, but we understand that Amendments 7 to 10 are a step in the right direction, and in fact the Government have said that there is not really much difference in practice between the wording in the Bill and the alternative wording that we suggested. Once again, I welcome the assurances, but we will pay close attention to make sure that ICBs and trusts are making people who should have the right to an ACD aware that they do have that right. I think that is something that many noble Lords agree on.
On Amendment 19D from my noble friend Lady Berridge, I understand that she had some concerns, which she was able to share with the Chamber, supported by other noble Lords. One was on the use of “or”, and there is some debate about whether we need “or” in the Bill to imply “or”. I am not a legal expert, but I hope that some assurance can be given there. I also hope that some of the other issues my noble friend mentioned can be resolved in further discussions between her and the department, and possibly either in the code of practice or in specific guidance—but also in discussions with the relevant health professionals who have raised the concerns with her.
One issue that I raised a number of times, and I thank noble Lords from the Lib Dem Benches also for raising it, is racial disparities. We have been speaking about racial disparities for far too long, and for far too long we have been given the answer, “It’s too complicated” or “The data is much more granular than you think”. I welcome the fact that the data will be published more frequently, but I hope that we take that data and make changes based on the evidence in it so that we are not looking at anecdotes or people’s prejudices but are tackling the real problem. For far too long, people of Afro-Caribbean descent have been detained, and no one has really got to the crux of the matter. I know that this is an issue which noble Lords from all Benches agree that we really need to hone in on and tackle.
Given all that, I again thank the Minister, her officials, her special adviser and others for their constructive approach. I also thank all noble Lords from all Benches. Many of us said that it was not a particularly political Bill, but it was an issue that we just wanted to get right. Given that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, this issue does not come up frequently enough and that it might be another 10 or 20 years before we discuss it again, and things move on and we are more aware of issues and understand some of these conditions in more detail, I thank all noble Lords and the Minister for the constructive way in which we have all worked together. Hopefully, we can now ensure that the Bill makes its way on to the statute book.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the thank yous and the appreciation for the whole team, which, as noble Lords have said, is extensive. I also appreciate the welcome for the number of improvements that we have made to the Bill by being able to work together. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, as I said at the outset. We have made significant progress on the Bill. Even today, the amendments and discussions reflect the complexity of these reforms and the shared determination to deliver legislation that will make a real difference.
I will seek to address some of the points that Peers have raised—as always, I am very happy to pick up points outside the Chamber. I turn first to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. She asked about having strong requirements for local authorities rather than special guardians. Stakeholders, including the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, agreed that the main priority should be whether the child is under a care order—that is, the local authority has parental responsibility—and that this should be considered under a separate tier to a special guardian or child arrangements order.
I will now pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised about why there is no use of the word “or” in the legislative drafting. On this point, I am advised that, by default, the absence of “and/or” on the page means “or” as a matter of drafting. The modern style is to say “and” when you mean “and”, but to leave—I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Pannick, and some of their colleagues can assist. I will start that sentence again: the modern style is to say “and” when you mean “and”, but to leave “or” silent if the latter is what is intended. This is the key point: we are clear that it must be a single person who is appointed.
On the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised about the creation of a hierarchy, we simply do not agree that a person with residual parental responsibility should always be blocked from being a nominated person, as the child arrangements order or special guardianship may be in place for reasons other than the parent being a risk to the child. However, we agree with the general principle that the AMHP should be aware of, and consider the implications of, any child arrangements order or special guardianship. In most cases, it is true that they will still appoint those people to be the nominated person, rather than the person with residual parental responsibility. It is considered that allowing flexibility allows judgments to be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration specific circumstances and what is most appropriate for the child or young person, rather than a blanket exclusion. We will provide clear guidance in the code, following consultation and engagement with experts and professionals. I hope that will allow a way forward to deal with the complexity.
The noble Baroness raised a point about a parent having malevolent intent. I stress that, if the AMHP later finds that the special guardian will be a more suitable person, the legislation allows them to terminate the appointment of the nominated person and appoint the special guardian instead. If there are any outstanding issues that I have not covered either in my speech or in this response, I will be happy to discuss those with the noble Baroness, as I have continued to do. As I said earlier to noble Lords, I believe that this discussion, these questions and the amendment all show the complexity that we are all seeking to resolve.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, asked a number of questions about the consultation. My department will lead the consultation, and we will be working with the Home Office and stakeholders to scope it. While I cannot give an exact timeline for the review, and I am sorry to be unable to do so, I can say again that before launching the consultation we are going to be working closely with the Home Office, the NHS, social care colleagues and the police to consider the options to consult on that support better outcomes for patients and the services. I will be pleased to set out further details on the timetable in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, asked what happens at the end of the review. I am sure she will understand that I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the process. However, on a future vehicle to implement the review, while obviously we cannot commit to a legislative means to do that, we will be taking forward the consultation results and outcomes when parliamentary time allows. I will be pleased to keep the noble Baroness updated on all these developments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned my colleague the Minister, Stephen Kinnock MP, who did a sterling job of taking through this legislation in the other place. She asked about his work with lived-experience groups. I say to your Lordships’ House and to the noble Baroness in particular that, after Royal Assent, our first priority will be to draft and consult on the code of practice. We will be engaging with people with lived experience, their families and carers, and with staff, professional groups, commissioners, providers and others to do this, alongside launching a public consultation. The code will be laid before Parliament before final publication. Realistically, we expect that this process will take at least a year, but the nature of our discussions means that it is important that we get this right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about confirmation of an implementation timeline. While of course legislation is important, implementation is what delivers the results. We estimate, as the noble Baroness has heard me say, that full implementation will take around 10 years; that does not mean we wait 10 years but, realistically, that is how long full implementation will take, due to the time needed to train the workforce and the need to ensure that the right community support is available. Noble Lords will be aware that this timeframe necessarily spans multiple spending reviews and multiple Parliaments, so we are limited—I hope noble Lords will understand this—in the detail that can be given about future spend and timelines. I quite understand why noble Lords raise this issue.
I acknowledge the dedication and thoughtful engagement shown by Members of your Lordships’ House throughout the passage of the Bill. The amendments made by the Government reflect not only technical refinements but, importantly to me, our response to the concerns and insights that were raised by Peers, MPs, stakeholders and those with lived experience. I believe that those concerns and insights have improved the Bill’s clarity and effectiveness, and I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments. It is thanks to what I regard as exemplary cross-party working that we are in a position to pass the Bill into law and begin implementation. It is about bringing positive change as soon as possible for those whose lives are touched by the legislation that we have debated. I commend the Motion to the House.
Baroness Merron
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 17.
(c) bringing the availability of that information and help to the attention of such people as it considers appropriate.”
“(1A) The arrangements that must be made under subsection (1) include such arrangements as NHS England or the integrated care board considers appropriate for people to be given information or help by having a conversation with someone who is suitably qualified, whether in-person or remotely.
(1B) In deciding how to discharge the duty under subsection (1), NHS England or an integrated care board must have regard to the particular benefits to a person of making an advance choice document within 12 months of their discharge from a hospital or a registered establishment where they were receiving medical treatment for, or assessment in relation to, mental disorder.”
(c) bringing the availability of that information and help to the attention of such people as it considers appropriate.”
“(1A) The arrangements that must be made under subsection (1) include such arrangements as the Local Health Board considers appropriate for people to be given information or help by having a conversation with someone who is suitably qualified, whether in-person or remotely.
(1B) In deciding how to discharge the duty under subsection (1), a Local Health Board must have regard to the particular benefits to a person of making an advance choice document within 12 months of their discharge from a hospital or a registered establishment where they were receiving medical treatment for, or assessment in relation to, mental disorder.”
“Human Rights Act 1998: extension to certain private care providers
In the Mental Health Act 1983, after section 142B insert—
“142C Human Rights Act 1998: extension to certain private care providers
(1) A registered care provider is to be regarded for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 as exercising a function of a public nature in providing any of the services mentioned in subsection (2) (to the extent that it would not otherwise be so regarded).
(2) The services are—
(a) after-care services provided in pursuance of arrangements made under section 117;
(b) services provided in pursuance of arrangements made by a local authority in Scotland discharging its duty under section 25 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003;
(c) the provision of medical treatment for mental disorder or assessment in relation to mental disorder, for an in-patient at a hospital, but only where that treatment or assessment is arranged or paid for by an NHS body.
(3) In this section—
“hospital” means any institution for the reception and treatment of people—
(a) suffering from mental disorder or other illness,
(b) convalescing, or
(c) requiring medical rehabilitation;
“illness” includes any injury or disability requiring medical treatment
or nursing;
“NHS body”—
(a) in relation to England, has the meaning given by section 275(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006;
(b) in relation to Wales, has the meaning given by section 206(1) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;
(c) in relation to Scotland, a health board constituted by order made under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland means—
(i) the Department of Health, or
(ii) a Health and Social Care Trust; “registered care provider” means--
(a) a person registered under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008,
(b) a person registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 or Part 1 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016,
(c) a person providing—
(i) a care service which is registered under section 59 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, or
(ii) an independent health care service registered under section 10P of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, or
(d) a person registered under Part 3 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.””
“means—
(a) a person by whom a nominated person is appointed under Part 1 of Schedule A1, or
(b) a person for whom a nominated person is appointed under Part 2 of that Schedule.”
Baroness Merron
That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 18 and 19 but do propose Amendments 19B and 19C in lieu—
“(3) If no local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient but there are one or more other persons who have parental responsibility and who are willing to act as the nominated person, the approved mental health professional must appoint one of them.”
“(3) If no local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient and there is a person within the following list who is willing to act as the nominated person, the approved mental health professional must appoint such a person—
(a) a person who has parental responsibility for the relevant patient;
(b) a person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the relevant patient is to live;
(c) a person who is a special guardian of the relevant patient.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) “child arrangements order” and “special guardian” have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 (see sections 8(1) and 14A(1) of that Act respectively).”
Baroness Berridge
In Amendment 19B in lieu, as closing words after subsection (3)(c), insert—
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clear intention to continue the dialogue on this, but I believe that we all would be assisted by officials from the Department for Education who hold responsibility for the Children Act and the various experts in the UK on this very difficult area of the interconnection of the Mental Health Act and the Children Act. I have to say at this point that I believe that there still is a fundamental misunderstanding of the authority of a court order to allow a professional to go behind it and appoint someone to this role who could directly conflict with a special guardianship order.
I want to make it totally clear that His Majesty’s Government are giving discretion to a group of professionals who have clearly said that they do not want this, do not have the competency to do it and would need 24/7 legal advice to attempt it. Unfortunately, because of the lack of consultation on this area, at this late stage we are at a very difficult moment for those professionals, who do not want to do the job that the Minister is giving them. In the light of her promises to meet further on this, I will not move my amendment to the Motion.
Baroness Merron
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 20 and 21.
“(c) the patient is not liable to be detained under this Act or any other legislation or by virtue of a court order.”
“8 In section 130J (Welsh qualifying informal patients), in subsection (2), for paragraph (c) substitute—
“(c) the patient is not liable to be detained under this Act or any other legislation or by virtue of a court order”.”
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:01 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 244 - Motion A1 disagreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in dealing with this Motion we will also deal with Motion A1.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 37”.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I really do not envy the Minister in this situation. Obviously, we have debated this issue on a number of occasions; it was debated in the other place last Wednesday.
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the Second Reading of this Bill in the other place and in this House—even more so, it is fair to say, since the Home Secretary unveiled her new policies on the asylum system and immigration policy, which, in many respects, supersede this Bill as it currently stands. I mention this because it is my firm view that, had this amendment been debated several months ago, with this Home Secretary, it would undoubtedly have been accepted; indeed, the Government may also have been minded to put down a similar amendment to my own.
We can potentially be cynical about the new policies that have been developed by the Home Secretary. Some may say that they are performative smoke and mirrors—that, in the absence of a policy to leave, or at least to derogate from the ECHR, they will rely on discretionary powers; that there will be little deterrent effect; and that far too many loopholes were still in place, even with the new policy—or we can believe that it is a genuine and workable programme to tackle uncontrolled immigration. We shall see, but let us take the Home Secretary at her word.
One of the key aspects of the Home Secretary’s new policy is a new work and study visa route. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord German, asked this: if we cannot collect data on student visas and criminality, how can we properly assess the risk of abuse of the visa system when the Home Office and universities are obliged to take such factors into account in their decision-making? Also, if we do not collect all the relevant data, particularly with respect to students, we cannot—this was articulated by the Home Secretary—pursue a policy of visa bans for countries that fail to co-operate with returns policies.
These are issues of openness and transparency. The Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—failed to reassure us on Report. He actually supported the thrust of our argument when he stated:
“I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that without proper information on this and a number of other matters, it is very difficult to have an informed public debate”;
as I said earlier, the Government could have moved their own amendment, but they have chosen not to do so. The Minister also said:
“The Home Office does propose to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1944.]
More to the point, the Minister was unable to address the substantive point made by my noble friend Lord Harper about information collected on the propensity of different nationalities to commit crime. I understand that he has received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos. We look forward to a clearer answer on that particular question; perhaps my noble friend will reference it should he choose to speak in this debate.
Your Lordships’ House will be aware that many other jurisdictions routinely collect, collate and publish this type of data. Examples include Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the Department of Home Affairs in Australia; and the United States’s SEVIS, or student and exchange visitor information system. All of them publish this data as a matter of routine. The question is: if we already have this data, why not publish it to enable proper, informed debate and fact-based policy-making? Ministers have failed—both here and, last Wednesday, in the other place—to articulate a coherent rationale for resisting this sensible, practical and helpful amendment to the Bill. With all due respect, their arguments were threadbare, to say the least.
Surely the acid test are the answers to two questions. First, will this amendment damage or impede the central premise of this Bill? Secondly, will the amendment help His Majesty’s Government develop public policy, which is of significant public concern, based on real-time, robust empirical data? For the benefit of the Minister, the answers are no and yes. Even now, the Minister can accept this amendment and break free of what I described earlier as a significant culture of secrecy and obfuscation in respect of this data. If Ministers want to be taken seriously and to restore trust in their proposals and policies, they can make a good start in good faith by conceding what would be, in the great scheme of things, a minor amendment. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Motion for several reasons. The first is that he set out a compelling case for why this data should be both collected, if it is not collected, and published so that we have a much clearer idea about the nature of student visas. I did not hear any compelling reason, in our debate on Report, why that should not be the case.
In the House of Commons, when they debated this matter last week, the Minister went out of his way to say that
“the Home Office already publishes data on a vast amount of migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/25; col. 790.]
He said that it is all “kept under review” and so on, but he did not actually give us a reason around this particular set of data. First, he did not tell us whether it is collected. He also did not tell us whether it was going to be published; actually, he did not come up with any reasons as to why my noble friend’s amendment could not be accepted. I certainly do not think that, either on Report here or in the House of Commons, Ministers set out any concerns about the drafting of my noble friend’s amendment—so it cannot just be that it is okay except that it is terribly badly drafted, in which case, of course, Ministers could have taken it away and used the skills of the Government’s parliamentary draftsmen to have it improved. That is the first thing; I cannot see any reason why we should not accept it.
If the Minister were to suggest that he would be happy to publish it, I cannot see why we should not just put the amendment in place. This Minister is a very fine Minister—we like him very much, and he is very robust—but, sadly, he may not be the Minister for ever.
Lord Harper (Con)
It is not that unfair to say that he may not carry on being the Minister for ever; indeed, he may not want to be the Minister for ever. He has another piece of legislation on borders coming very soon. He may say that he is going to publish it but it would be better, I think, if it were in statute so that, whichever Minister or Home Secretary is there, we could be sure that this information was going to be published.
There is a reason for that. As my noble friend said, we had quite a debate about two different aspects of this on Report. The first was about specific data on criminality, while the second—I raised this issue—was about what information Ministers collected to make decisions on student visas. I recollected that, when I was an immigration Minister serving in the Home Office under the leadership of the then Home Secretary—my noble friend Lady May, who is sitting in front of me—it was absolutely the case that the Home Office collected data about the propensity of different nationalities to overstay and the risks that were presented. That information was used in both the information that was sought and the judgments that were made on accepting people to come to the United Kingdom—quite rightly—to make sure that we had robust borders.
As my noble friend suggested, I got a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, after that debate. I had asked two questions. One was about the information collected on the propensity of visa applicants to commit crimes. The second was about risk assessment in student visa decisions; the second one is most pertinent to this debate, of course, but they are linked.
On the first one, the Minister answered the question, but it was not a very good answer, which is why I am a little sceptical about whatever assurances we may hear from the Dispatch Box. He said:
“In accordance with the public sector equality duty, the Government’s policies do not unduly discriminate against people based on their protected characteristics, which includes on the basis of nationality”.
He specifically said:
“The Home Office does not collect data about the propensity of different nationalities to commit crimes”.
So there seems a bit of a gap in the information that is collected. It may be that Ministers will publish information about the numbers of specific individuals, but my question was about whether that information is used to make judgments about whether particular nationalities are more of a risk. That does not mean that you have a blanket ban against people, but it might mean that you ask some more searching questions if particular nationalities are a risk. It sounds as if the Government do not intend to do that at all.
The most worrying thing was the question I asked about whether the Government about what information was collected to do those risk assessments for student visa decisions. Answer came there none in this letter, which was purportedly an answer to my question. The only conclusion one can come to is that the Minister did not want to put down the answer because it would be that no information is collected and there is no risk assessment. There definitely used to be a risk assessment so, if there is not one now, I do not know when it stopped, but that is very much a step backwards. So, for both those reasons, it makes no sense.
What the Minister said in his reply to me—that the Government do not make decisions about people based on their nationality—does not seem to accord with what the Home Secretary announced just last week. She said that the UK would stop granting visas to people from Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—that is a blanket ban on every individual from those countries—if their Governments did not start rapidly co-operating on removals. On that issue, I happen to agree with the Home Secretary—I think that is a sensible policy—but it is not consistent with what the Minister said in his letter about not unduly discriminating against people based on their nationality, unless, of course, “unduly” is doing quite a lot of work—perhaps more than it bears—so I am a bit sceptical.
If the Minister stands up and says that he will publish the data, as my noble friend says, I would be much happier if that commitment were put into statute. We need not delay the Bill. We broadly do not think it will make as much positive difference as the Government do, but there is lots in it to be welcomed. I do not want to hold it up, but we need not hold it up at all because the Minister could just accept my noble friend’s amendment and then we would be done. However, if he is not prepared to accept it, I fear we must test the opinion of the House. That will ultimately be up to my noble friend, but, based on the letter that I have had from the Minister, I am certainly not—at this stage, at least—persuaded that we do not need to go a little further.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not imagine that I am the only Member of this House who is very often irritated by a Commons reason in this sort of situation that says, “We don’t agree because we don’t agree”. On this occasion, we have a reasoned reason with which I, for one, certainly do agree: that it is not,
“appropriate for there to be a statutory requirement to publish the data”.
There is a place for something other than statutory requirements, and I think this is one of them.
I agree with a couple of things that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said. I do not know that anybody ever envies a Minister in the Home Office. More seriously, we have largely been overtaken by the announcements that have come from the Home Office in quite a stream since we started work on this Bill. It has made it very difficult to deal with the Bill.
I also want to talk about the amendment itself. It does not give a context. It could, for instance, have added that there must be the collation and publication of the number of overseas students who—I summarise—have remained in the UK and succeeded in their contribution to the success of the UK. The data referred to suggests no comparator with British citizens, and my real objection to this amendment is that I do not want to appear to assume that criminals are overrepresented in the overseas student cohort or, bluntly, that immigrants include a particularly large number of criminals. The starting point for this amendment makes me deeply uneasy.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling Motion A1, that this House,
“do insist on its Amendment 37”.
The amendment that we made to the Bill on Report has a simple purpose. My noble friend simply wishes the Home Office to publish data on overseas students, and that is a wish that I share.
The reason given by the other place for disagreeing with our Amendment 37 is that they,
“do not consider it appropriate for there to be a statutory requirement to publish the data listed in the Amendment, the release of which should be determined within the wider publication of official statistics on migration”.
I agree with the basic premise here that an amendment to primary legislation is not necessarily the best way in which to force the publication of statistics. Ideally, we would not have to go down the legislative avenue to get the Home Office to publish these statistics. However, when my noble friend has repeatedly asked the Government to do so and they still refuse, this is the only option that we are left with.
There is a very simple solution to all this—just publish the data. The Home Office must know how many visas it revokes and how many people it removes from the country. Surely, it knows how many of those revocations and removals are of foreign students. I wholeheartedly support my noble friend in trying to force the publication of this data and, should he decide to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling his amendment, but I hope that I can persuade the House that no Division is required. We will see. I hope to persuade the House of that in due course.
The Bill returns to this House having been considered in the other place on Wednesday 19 November, during which the government amendments to the Lords stages of the Bill were approved by the elected House of Commons. As the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Jackson, mentioned, migration policy is a fluid issue. There are always issues that we are bringing forward. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals that I spoke to in this House on Thursday 20 November, and there is a further Statement on legal migration issues tomorrow evening in this House, if Members wish to participate and hold the Government to account still further.
As noble Lords know, Amendment 37 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, was taken to the other place having been approved by this House. The other place rejected that amendment, which would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following revocation of their student visas and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visas.
I maintained at the time—and, dare I say it, without wishing to provoke the noble Lord to press this to a Vote, I maintain still—that there is no requirement in primary legislation and it would be unnecessary. It would undermine the mechanisms in place to ensure the appropriate publication of statistics in full so that the context of migration statistics already published is known. I note the view put forward by the Liberal Democrat Benches in the debate in the other place that the amendment would not help to tackle organised crime nor improve border security, nor would it strengthen the Bill. As I set out when debating the amendment in Committee and on Report, the Government see the value of transparency, hence the vast quantity of statistics that the Home Office already publishes on a regular basis, in line with the Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.
The Home Office regularly reviews the official statistics being published and takes into account a number of factors including user needs, the resources required to compile the statistics, and the quality and availability of such data. I again confirm for the House that having requirements in legislation is not needed or appropriate. While I recognise and value transparency, it is critical to ensure due process for the accuracy and quality of data, which can be achieved within existing mechanisms for official statistics to be released.
However—this is where I come to my “however”—I note the interest in this topic and am anxious to try to make some progress. I do not wish to have further ping-pong between both Houses, if at all possible. I can therefore make the commitment to the House tonight that, subject to the proposed new clause not being included in the Bill—in other words, the amendment to the Motion not being pressed this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—the Government will review and publish the data held on the number of students who have had their visas revoked due to criminality. These statistics will cover a defined period and will be broken down by nationality of the offender, as was stipulated in the noble Lord’s original amendment. I hope that this commitment will provide Members of the House with reassurance that the Government take seriously the importance of transparency in the immigration system through the publication of statistics.
The proposal I put to the House tonight provides what I would argue is an achievable, non-legislative solution to what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and others have called for. This approach will embed publication of the requested data in the wider mechanisms for Home Office publication of statistics, ensuring that the outcome is of high quality and is appropriately produced along with other data. I urge Members of the House to support this approach by approving Motion A.
Lord Harper (Con)
I will be the bad cop here and then potentially my noble friend can be the good cop, if he wants to.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm that all the data mentioned in the amendment that my noble friend had on the Order Paper is going to be published? Secondly, given that this was debated in the House of Commons just three sitting days ago, why is it that the Minister in the House of Commons did not just make that commitment then? I have a problem if it is only with the threat of an amendment being passed that the Minister is prepared to come to the Dispatch Box to make the commitment; that makes me a little suspicious.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Oh, give over, please. The whole purpose of having this House and the other House discuss amendments and have ping-pong is to achieve a compromise between what this House wants to do and what the other House wants to do, and to try to find a solution. The noble Lord says that the Minister in the other place said X three days ago. Well, I am saying this today. If he does not want to accept it then we can have a discussion and he can press for a vote, and we can see how people this House vote and where we are.
Sometimes I despair. We are actually trying to move things on to meet the objectives of the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Harper, and he still does not want to accept the Christmas presents I am offering him. I am telling him today that we will, as I have said, provide information on student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported after the revocation of their student visas and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation. That is what the information is. Work will commence immediately, with a view to publication by the end of the financial year. Should this work identify that additional time is required, an update will be provided.
We are trying to meet the objectives of the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I hope that the noble Lord will take this as a democratic parliamentary decision between the two Houses to achieve the aims of one small amendment at the end of a lot of consideration of the Bill to date.
Lord German (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, will he confirm that what he has said, and what I have heard from the Benches to my right, is that apart from the demise of the Minister, so that he could not carry out what he just described, there is no reason why, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they should not accept the Motion before us? We should take on board what the Minister says—and if I were the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I would take it as a win. I think he ought to withdraw.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord German. I cannot guarantee that I will be here for ever—nor would I wish to be. I have done 13 years at various Dispatch Boxes over the last 27 years, and the 14 years I did not do were not my fault. I hope to continue.
I am giving a commitment on behalf of the United Kingdom Government which will hold for the term of this Parliament. I cannot commit future Governments to issues but, again, that is what parliamentary democracy is about—holding Government Ministers to account. Who knows who the next Government will be or what they will look like, but I am giving a commitment on behalf of the UK Government for those statistics over this period of time. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, will accept it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. It is important that we understand the wider context of what we are doing here. We are seeking to improve the Bill. It is the role of this House to provide scrutiny and oversight and to improve legislation that may be defective or could be improved.
As I said in opening, this amendment would improve the Bill. We all know about judicial activism, the threat of judicial review and, not least, the opposition of the Minister’s Back-Benchers in the other place. The Home Secretary’s new proposals may very well fall foul of judicial review, so anything in primary legislation that protects the Government and enables them to carry out their stated policies is probably a good thing.
I am somewhat discombobulated by the transformation of the Minister from bruiser to pussycat today. He will concede that he has not always been like that. The context of this is that I asked six parliamentary Questions between March and June this year and got the same vacuous answers from the department—including that it will “always undertake a thorough, comprehensive review of statistics”. He will forgive me if I am slightly less willing to take this on board. I make the distinction between the Minister, who is a man of honour and integrity, and the department in which he is a Minister, which does not always put some issues at the top of its priorities. I will leave it at that.
To respond quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I reassure her that there was no inference that all foreign students are criminals and are therefore likely to be deported. That is why I specifically said on Report:
“I want to make it clear that the vast majority of those individuals come, study hard and contribute to our society and economy, but there is a minority who abuse that privilege—and it is a privilege. We have some of the world’s top universities in our country, and it is not an automatic right to be here”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1932.]
I stand by those words.
I am concerned about the lack of focus on this issue. I was confused by the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, to my noble friend Lord Harper. It did not seem to have a focus on risk assessment and was not clear about what data would be collected. The Government seem particularly ill prepared, as my noble friend alluded to, for the visa ban policy on Angola and other countries if they do not collect and publish basic data.
Finally, we seem to have no idea of a timescale. We have constantly been promised that a protocol is in place for the collection and publication of data, but it is always mañana —it is always tomorrow.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Just so the noble Lord has absolutely no excuse not to support what I have said, a broad time period will be reported on, subject to the data being available. We will commence work immediately, with a view to publication by the end of the financial year, which is April. That is the timescale, if the noble Lord wishes to accept this. If he does not, he can have his Division if he wishes, but that is the offer I am making to him today.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I take that offer in good faith, but it will be 14 months since I first asked a similar question about the figures. The Government have had endless opportunities—before they launched this new policy, and before the Prime Minister’s speech on immigration earlier in autumn—to bring forward their own amendment on this issue.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
So the noble Lord would rather have a Division than accept the publication of what he wants by April. I just want to be clear on what he is saying today. So that the House is clear on what he is saying, the noble Lord would rather try to win a vote in order to cause more difficulties and discussion, even though I am offering to give him by April next year the thing he is requesting.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I take on board what the Minister is saying. However, I reiterate the point that it is intellectually incoherent to think it is good policy to say in Hansard and in letters to my noble friends that you have always believed something, but not to will the means by putting it in primary legislation. On that basis, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:17 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 81 / Noes: 132 - Motion H1 disagreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D, E and E1, which are grouped together. It is a great pleasure to bring the Planning and Infrastructure Bill back to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place.
A number of further commitments were made last week, which, where relevant, I will repeat today. I will first discuss amendments that relate to the provision of infrastructure in this country. Before doing so, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussions between Report and today’s ping-pong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has tabled an amendment that would reinstate the requirement for the Government to respond to any resolutions of Parliament, or Select Committee recommendations, when making certain material changes to a national policy statement. This amendment risks undermining a core aim of the Bill: to keep national policy statements up to date swiftly and effectively. The reflective amendment procedure is not a shortcut to avoid scrutiny; it is a practical tool, accompanied by commitments to work with Select Committees, to ensure that NPSs can be updated without undue delay to reflect published government policy, legislative updates, a court decision or a change to a published document referred to in the statement.
National policy statements are the backbone of the NSIP regime. They unlock billions in private investment, create jobs and drive sustainable growth. If they fall out of date, projects can stall, costs can rise and confidence in the system is eroded.
As noble Lords know, Clause 1 already guarantees robust oversight by requiring all NPSs to be reviewed at least every five years, with the oldest NPSs required to be updated within two years of the clause coming into effect. We expect that updates to the five NPSs in this transitional category will undergo full parliamentary scrutiny, and Select Committees will play a central role. But where changes relate to specific types of updates, such as reflecting government policy and aligning with legislation or court rulings, the reflective amendment route ensures that the process is proportionate while maintaining accountability.
To address concerns raised in both Houses, the Government have made clear commitments. We will notify the relevant Select Committee at the start of any consultation. We will lay a Statement in Parliament explaining how the changes meet the statutory definition. Ministers will make themselves available to give evidence during that period. If a Select Committee publishes a report during the consultation period, the Government will take its recommendations into account. These safeguards ensure transparency and respect for Parliament. The chair of the Commons Liaison Committee has already said she is reassured that the Select Committee corridor will be treated with the respect it deserves.
Let me emphasise that this procedure will only apply to changes that reflect published policy, legislative amendments or court decisions. Even then, Parliament retains the ultimate safeguard. The draft NPS must be laid for 21 sitting days before it can take effect. This is a balanced, proportionate approach. It keeps the NPSs current, supports infrastructure delivery and preserves Parliament’s ultimate authority, ensuring that oversight remains robust and meaningful.
Amendments 2A and 3 seek to insert additional requirements relating to heritage consents and community engagement for reservoir NSIP applications. I greatly respect the concerns about the impact of reservoir NSIPs on communities and heritage, so ably explained in the course of our debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, recalling villages in Northumbria, the Lake District and Wales that were submerged for projects such as Rutland Water and Kielder Water. While these reservoirs provide vital water and local pride, they came at great cost. Securing safeguards for heritage and for communities is essential when considering major infrastructure projects. Heritage underpins our tourism and economy and is irreplaceable. It must be managed effectively through our planning system.
The historic cases I mentioned arose before today’s planning framework. We now have the Planning Act 2008 and a suite of supporting secondary legislation and guidance which ensures the thorough evaluation of nationally significant infrastructure projects and their impacts.
Section 33 of the Planning Act removes the need for separate consents to be obtained for works affecting listed buildings or monuments, instead creating a unified consent in the development consent order if granted. A number of protections, including in legislation, are embedded in that consenting process. These ensure that the NSIP process does not represent a dilution of heritage protections, while ensuring the regime is a one-stop shop for consent.
First and foremost, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets when deciding applications. The Secretary of State must comply with the obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations. Decisions must also be made in accordance with the national policy statements, subject to limited exceptions. The water resources NPS applies to dams and reservoirs and contains dedicated policy on the historic environment, requiring weight to be given to conservation and recognising that heritage assets cannot be replaced.
This NPS defines heritage assets and explains that some have a level of significance that justifies official designation. This explicitly includes world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, and conservation areas.
Applicants are also required, where applicable, to include information about heritage impacts when they submit their applications for development consent. Where an environmental impact assessment is required, they must assess impacts as part of this. But it is not solely applicants and the Secretary of State who are responsible for consideration of heritage. Historic England is a statutory body required to be notified by the applicant of a decision to accept an application for examination. Statutory bodies are given the opportunity to make a relevant representation. If they do so, they are classified as “interested parties” and would be engaged, with opportunities to provide views to the examining authority, during the NSIP examination process.
I am confident that the NSIP system provides numerous sufficient protections for the heritage assets of this country. However, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House today, and as such, I am happy to commit to review the “historic environment” section of the water NPS to consider both the advice provided to the applicant and required considerations of the Secretary of State. Given the numerous additional protections and commitments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is sufficiently reassured and that he will not insist on his Amendment 2.
On the impact of reservoirs on communities, before we get to the substance of the amendment, I want to briefly note that it is legally flawed. The amendment misconstrues the process for a dam or reservoir project entering the NSIP regime; most of the time such projects automatically enter the NSIP regime as a Section 14(1)(m) project when the criteria set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act are met.
I none the less want to emphasise that the voices and contributions of people living in affected areas are vital to the effective delivery of projects and the legitimacy of the NSIP system. Following changes proposed to pre-application consultation through the Bill, the Government will publish new guidance setting clear expectations on engagement with those affected in the NSIP application process.
Let me be clear: at the forefront of this guidance will be an expectation that engagement is undertaken early, when voices can and do make a real difference to projects. This should be offered in a variety of ways, including in person, to be accessible and allow affected persons to share their views about the development and the impact it will have.
NSIP applicants have a responsibility towards those affected by their proposals and should be present and visible to local communities to ensure accountability to them during the development and examination of applications. The requirement for an applicant to publicise a proposed application is preserved in the Planning Act 2008. The Act continues to ensure that people are notified during pre-application. Those affected persons will be notified if an application is accepted for examination.
Opportunities to be heard do not stop there. Statutory provisions guarantee participation throughout the process. Local authorities are invited to produce local impact reports, bringing forward local knowledge and setting out impacts of the development, which the Secretary of State must have regard to in deciding the application. The system also provides opportunities for individuals to participate, both through making a relevant and/or written representation and making oral representations at hearings. Those whose land is being acquired have an automatic right to request a hearing and have their voice heard.
While these amendments raise important points, the existing framework already provides strong protections. Nevertheless, to provide further assurances, and in recognition of the importance of the issues raised, the Government will commit to bring forward the next water NPS update to consider community engagement for reservoir and dam projects.
The Secretary of State will consider how best to reflect expectations around early and effective engagement with impacted residents, particularly where projects may involve significant demolition or disruption, to ensure that local communities and impacted individuals’ voices are heard. This will include consultation with stakeholders on whether greater policy guidance is required to ensure that our planning system remains rigorous, responsive and inclusive. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and that she will agree to no longer insist on her amendment.
Amendments 31A and 31B relate to accessible charging and seek to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points. I say a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his constructive engagement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their contributions on this matter. The Government tabled an amendment in lieu which includes some changes that go slightly further than the original amendment. Reflecting the feedback from industry and other stakeholders, the Government’s amendment ensures that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points. They also ensure that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering accessible charge points. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 already gives the Government powers to require the sharing of accessibility data, so we have not included this.
This amendment applies to Great Britain. The Northern Irish Ministers did not wish for this amendment, which relates to a transferred matter, to extend to them. They are able to bring forward their own legislation. The UK Government will work with Northern Ireland and wishes to minimise divergence of standards across the United Kingdom. I appreciated the very interesting debate that we had in this House, led by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and hope that this meets all the noble Lord’s concerns on this issue.
Turning finally to Amendment 32, the Government recognise the impact that water stress has on communities, including farmers and sports clubs, as well as the role that low-hazard reservoirs can play in mitigating such issues. I recognise the wider point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that urgent action is required. The Government will respond to the Cunliffe recommendations in full via a White Paper that will be published later this year. It will outline the Government’s vision for the future of the water sector, marking the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Defra Science Search website. Updated data will be published following consultation and decisions on the details of proposed reforms.
I am happy to confirm that the Housing Minister committed in the other place to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Minister went further, committing to provide clarity to farmers about when the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs can be used. This would be achieved by updating the relevant planning practice guidance. Providing further information and clarity about precisely when this permitted development right can be relied on, and what conditions and limitations apply, will support the amendment’s aim of enabling farmers to construct these reservoirs.
We support the objective of this amendment. Of the two actions proposed, the first action has already been completed. The Government have committed to deliver the second within the timeframe set out in the original amendment. We have also gone further and committed to clarifying guidance on the permitted development right that supports the construction of on-farm reservoirs. I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, feels able not to insist on her amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Motion B1. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has set out about it. We have made great progress in relation to many of the heritage aspects of this Bill, not least in the rewriting of Clause 41, which had caused such consternation for heritage groups across the country. I am grateful to the Government for taking that away and rewording it as they did earlier in our deliberations on this Bill.
The section that we are discussing relates to reservoirs. That we are still discussing it in this way is because it was inserted in the Bill rather later in the process. I was perplexed as to why, given the progress that we made in rewriting Clause 41, relating to infrastructure projects conducted under the Transport and Works Act, the same protections and caution were not given to heritage assets when it came to the Government’s new proposals on reservoirs.
I am grateful for the recognition the Minister has given that heritage assets cannot be replaced if they are lost. By definition, if we are submerging assets underwater through such large-scale projects as reservoirs, the risk is significant, particularly if we are relaxing the rules about who can carry out some of these works. A lot of the concerns that we had were around this being delegated potentially to international companies that are not rooted in the UK and so are not, perhaps, bothered about aspects of our heritage that really matter to communities. We want to be vigilant here.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the informal meeting I had with the Minister last week. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in relation to my Motion E1, and I too will refer in a moment to the letter received. I am compounded by the fact that my train was late. This time a van had collided with a bridge, but, fortunately, there was no lasting damage and no-one was hurt, not like the Selby rail disaster. Then, I found that they have changed the classic Outlook to modern Outlook, and I could not load my emails. But I am very grateful for having had sight of the letter.
The Minister will be aware that the Toddbrook reservoir failed on 1 August 2019. Since that time, the Balmforth review was set up, but it is not due to report until 2027. My concern as regards large reservoirs is that the Government do not seem to be displaying any sense of urgency. I am mindful of how much reservoirs cost to build, even in spite of NSIPs under the Bill before us this evening, and that there are other barriers to overcome. The Minister may or may not be aware that each individual reservoir has to be signed off by a panel engineer. There is a chronic shortage of panel engineers, and I do not know that that is being addressed by the Government any time soon. My understanding—I have tracked this since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was adopted—is that the de minimis rules allowing a small on-farm reservoir require legislation to amend the de minimis rule to make sure that these on-farm, non-hazardous reservoirs can be constructed.
I take some comfort and great heart from what the Minister said when speaking to Motion E1 this evening, but I do not know that the issues that I have raised, both in Committee and on Report, have actually been addressed. The Minister referred to guidance being published. Can she confirm whether or not that is statutory? Just so those seeking to construct such reservoirs are very clear on it, what will the status of that guidance be? When will the actual guidance to which she referred be published?
Having made those remarks, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House, depending on what reassurance the Minister is able to give me. I put it to her informally last week that this amendment is designed to help the Government.
In June, the Environment Agency published its National Framework for Water Resources, which called for measures to curb the water deficit, including building more reservoirs, in the light of the potential public water shortages of 5 billion litres of water a day by 2055. We in Yorkshire are very conscious of the fact that the reservoirs have still not filled up since the drought this year. We have every prospect of a drought continuing into next year. The efforts to extinguish and control the wildfire on the North Yorkshire Moors were hampered by the lack of access to water. It was also the case that it was difficult for crops—arable and horticultural—to have access to water, and there was difficulty around the availability of watering for livestock.
These are very real urgent issues. I am afraid that the reason given by the Commons for failing to agree to Amendment 32 is very thin. We are told that it is not
“necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs”.
I have set out this evening the reason for urgency and why this is a very real issue. I believe we need to write in the Bill the concerns I have set out.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion B and Motion B1, which is the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lords Amendment 2A, which has been sent back to us, in effect puts the Planning Act 2008 back into the position it was originally in. To that extent, it is not so objectionable. But we are looking to ensure, as my noble friend eloquently presented, both now and on Report, that when these decisions are being made we take full account of the protections that should be available for irreplaceable heritage assets.
In addition to the assurances about national policy statements that the Minister has given to my noble friend, I ask her whether she will look at the guidance, which Clause 7(2) provides for, that can be given about the preparation of local impact reports, which as she will know are a material factor in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008. If that guidance makes it clear that the local impact report must make specific reference to the heritage assets that are to be affected, and to the impact on not only those assets themselves but their environment, that might highlight any potential adverse impacts for when the Secretary of State has to weigh up the adverse impacts against the benefits under the Section 104 decision. I hope that the Minister might add that to the ways in which the assurances might be bolstered to protect heritage assets.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion E1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In particular, I agree with her about the level of urgency and the slow progress that has been made on this, and about the de minimis rules, which need thoroughly updating to make it more possible to avoid drought situations. I have just one question for the Minister. She referred to a paper appearing later this year. Does she mean this calendar year—in which case it would be just in time for my Christmas stocking?
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Amendments 31A and 31B, which is very similar, as she said, to Amendment 31, which I proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is a practical transport expert—he knows how to mend a bus—as I hope I am, although his expertise is wider than mine, which is based on taxis. I hope that he will agree that success does not come from changing the law alone but will come when disabled people are not limited in their use of charging systems for electric cars. Today, no doubt, there are people struggling with chargers that have steps that could be designed out and cables that are too heavy. Success can be declared when charging infrastructure is no longer a barrier to the purchase of a car for a disabled person.
Again, I apologise for the inelegant way in which this amendment was proposed at Third Reading; an amendment in Committee would have been more elegant. However, I am glad that this necessary amendment has been made. I look forward to the regulations being promulgated with lightning speed, and actual accessible charging points being seen widely even more quickly.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, in this first group of amendments, I am delighted that the Government have acceded to the amendment about accessible electric vehicle charging points that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, just spoke to. That is really good news.
Of the other three amendments that we are thinking about, two concern reservoirs—building them and what their impact will be. The first, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about ensuring that the statutory requirements to protect our heritage are considered in full in the planning application for a new reservoir. The other, from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned about whole villages being drowned. Then we have the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is anxious that we build more reservoirs, so we have a bit of a dilemma here.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. All through the debate on this Bill, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been wholeheartedly in support of shoring up the statutory requirements to protect our national heritage. It is unfortunate that the Minister has been unable to accede to the amendment that was passed on Report to provide even greater support for those heritage sites and buildings that may be destroyed to create a reservoir—especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has pointed out, since third parties, even companies based abroad, may now be able to build reservoirs. They may not have such a great concern for our heritage as those of us who live in this country. That is a great shame, and if the noble Lord wanted to move his amendment to a further vote, we on these Benches would support him.
I will wait to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says about her Motion C1 and whether she wishes again to test the opinion of the House on that one.
On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I thought the Minister gave quite a lot of assurance that the Government are considering making changes to regulations regarding the building of low-hazard reservoirs, which is what the amendment is about. That seemed perfectly acceptable, given that a great deal of thought has to be given to creating reservoirs. As we discovered in Derbyshire when the Toddbrook one failed, volumes of water can be devastating if dams and reservoirs are breached. With those remarks, I look forward to the comments from the Conservative Front Bench.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, before turning to the specifics of the amendments before us, I will restate what has guided our approach throughout the passage of the Bill. We recognise the legislation’s importance to the Government and their desire to see it completed in time for the Budget. From the outset, we on these Benches have worked diligently and constructively, through the usual channels and beyond, to help ensure timely progress. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for acknowledging these efforts, particularly in the light of unhelpful and misleading briefings to the contrary, most recently in the Observer yesterday.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful for their engagement on the important matters that have been the subject of this group. I will address noble Lords’ points individually.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I refer to all the protections I set out earlier as part of the Government’s reassurance that we take very seriously the conservation of heritage buildings. He asked me about timeframes. It was the intention that the water NPS would not be done until 2030 but I am prepared to commit to him that we will bring it forward to 2026 so that we can make sure that this is addressed quickly to give clarity to all those concerned. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord, and that that protection, and the bringing forward of the review to next year, will enable him not to press his amendment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, I very much appreciate the long-standing expertise and commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to addressing some of the pressing water management issues that have been around for decades. I understand her impatience about the time it has taken to deal with some of them. On the urgency, I draw her attention to the fact that the Cunliffe review was completed this year, and the Government have already undertaken to produce a water White Paper by the end of the year, so we are not hanging around in dealing with this. Once the appropriate consultation on the White Paper has been done, we will bring forward legislation in a water Bill to deal with it. I hope that that lets the noble Baroness know that the Government do not want these issues to continue to hang around for decades. We want to deal with this issue; we take it seriously. I know that my colleagues in Defra deal with it daily.
The NPS for water resources infrastructure, designated in September 2023 and amended in 2025, sets out the need for and the Government’s policies for all nationally significant water resources infrastructure projects—that is, large reservoirs and transfer schemes. It explains that the need for the infrastructure is set out in water company statutory water resources management plans and explains the assessment principles that any DCO application for qualifying water resources projects must satisfy. For projects that fall under the NSIP regime, automatically or by direction, and within the NPS’s scope, the Secretary of State must determine the application in accordance with the NPS. It is important that NPSs are in place as quickly as possible so that we can determine applications in accordance with them, unless there are prescribed compelling reasons not to do so. The policy therefore ensures that long-term water supply resilience and national infrastructure are embedded in the consenting framework.
On the reservoirs the noble Baroness was referring to, we will get that into the planning practice guidance as soon as is practicable. I am happy to work with her on that as we move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised the issue of local impact statements. He is quite right to say that, as part of the Planning Act 2008, relevant local authorities will be invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of proposed developments on the authority’s area. The Government are considering responses to our recent consultation on guidance on and engagement with NSIPs. This includes guidance to local authorities on local impact reports. We will carefully consider what the guidance can say to address concerns about the heritage impact issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Water White Paper will be this calendar year—I hope before Parliament breaks for recess, but I do not want to commit my Defra colleagues further than they have given me licence to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised issues concerning reservoirs. The national policy statement would protect those reservoirs and make sure that we have an obligation to do so. As I have explained many times, although the national policy statements are not in themselves the matter of primary legislation, because they have to change and be adaptable to circumstances, they do carry the full weight of the planning system in legal terms. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that that protection is in place.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. She is completely right: we need to get this Bill through so that we can start on the infrastructure projects and the housebuilding that we need. As the Minister responsible for these issues in this House, the human reality she talks about and the disruption faced by communities is absolutely not lost on me. As we go through the process of strengthening the guidance and bringing forward an early review of the NPS on water, we will take full account of the need to ensure that communities are protected in the way she so admirably championed throughout consideration of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B in lieu.
“Accessibility of public charging or refuelling points
In section 10 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection) at the end insert—
“(5) Regulations may impose requirements in connection with the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points in England, Wales and Scotland, such as requirements relating to—
(a) the design of the point,
(b) the location, placement or surroundings of the point, and
(c) the provision of assistance in using the point.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may prescribe requirements by reference to technical standards or specifications published by a person specified in the regulations (including standards or specifications as amended from time to time).
(7) Regulations under subsection (5) may impose requirements on any person, including—
(a) persons making, supplying, importing, operating or installing public charging or refuelling points;
(b) the owners or occupiers of land on which public charging or refuelling points are situated.
(8) Regulations under subsection (5) may not impose requirements on owners or occupiers of domestic premises.””
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 32, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 32A.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 32.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, expressed concern, in that non-hazardous reservoirs are specifically small reservoirs. Can the Minister write to me on this point? I understand that we still need legislation. This evening would be the opportunity to explain the de minimis rules and how non-hazardous small reservoirs can be built on farms—something that farmers are hoping will happen now. I regret that there is probably not enough support in the House to put the Motion to a vote this evening, but I will return to this issue another time, because I do not believe we have seen any evidence of urgency. I thank the Minister for the concessions she has given, but I do not believe there is the sense of urgency that farmers are crying out for.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can reassure the noble Baroness that we propose to introduce a new hazard classification system with four hazard classes. The assessment of hazard class would take into account dam height, reservoir volume and likely numbers of people downstream. Safety management practices would be tailored to each hazard class so that the lowest hazard class would have minimum requirements—less than the current ones, which I hope is reassuring to her—and the highest hazard class would have more than the current requirements. I hope it is reassuring that we want to make this easier for farmers, not harder.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
When is that classification coming in?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, as well as moving Motion F, I will also speak to Motions G, J and J1, with the permission of the House.
I will begin with Amendment 33, which was from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which sought to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on this very important issue. Having reflected on our useful discussions in previous debates and subsequent correspondence and having heard the strength of feeling in the House on this point, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Government agree with the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will therefore use the next opportunity in the other place to bring forward an amendment which will seek to give effect to the intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation are subject to the affirmative procedure. This, alongside the further safeguard built into the legislation which places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, should ensure an appropriate amount of scrutiny and engagement ahead of the implementation of the national scheme of delegation. I very much saw the noble Lord’s point about the first set of regulations coming forward, and I hope he is reassured on that point.
Amendment 37, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, exempted assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very constructive engagement on this issue. We agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them though the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently under consideration by this House—we have not had its First Reading yet, but it will be imminent. If we agree where someone wants to demolish an asset of community value, it is only right they should have to submit a planning application so that the full planning merits can be considered. That is why the Government committed in the other place to consult on this proposal at the earliest opportunity. As mentioned in the debate in the other place, Parliament has granted the Secretary of State powers to make permitted development rights through secondary legislation. As such, the Government feel we should follow the proper route to amending these through important consultation. We hope these commitments reassure the noble Baroness, and we look forward to a consultation on the matter shortly. I hope the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to look at the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. There are significantly greater powers over community assets in that Bill than currently exist, and I hope that will reassure her of our intent in this matter.
Amendment 39 was on brownfield land and sustainable development. I completely agree with Peers on the need to prioritise and fully utilise brownfield land. I want to be explicit and assure Peers that the Government already have a brownfield-first approach to development—a principle that successive Governments have adhered to. That is why the Government updated the National Planning Policy Framework last year to further strengthen policy support for development on brownfield land. It currently states:
“Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.
We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include “large areas of hardstanding”, bringing more brownfield land into scope and limiting the need to look at other types of land. Of course, it is also the case that, as well as prioritising brownfield development, the existing NPPF already provides protections for non-brownfield land—such as protected landscapes, green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty—alongside guiding developments away from, for example, using the best and most versatile agricultural land where possible—I know that was a matter of great concern to noble Lords.
Last year, the Government published a Brownfield Passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. This included exploring the role of national policy in setting minimum density expectations for certain types of locations to support intensification in the right places. But we are committed to going even further to embed the brownfield-first policy into our planning system, which is why I can commit to consulting on a revised framework later this year that will set out a more rules-based approach to planning, including ensuring that brownfield land is the first port of call for development. In that consultation, we will put forward proposals that help prioritise brownfield land for development, set clear expectations for where development can take place and make best use of existing infrastructure to grow and densify our towns and cities and to support sustainable development. Our proposals will explicitly encourage mayors and local authorities to accommodate more development on brownfield land and specifically relate this to spatial development strategies.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned that policy changes alone are not strong enough. I make it clear that the NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework—and all the points I have made previously on the priority use of brownfield land—is a material consideration in planning decisions. All strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, this is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.
Our newly revised NPPF, which we will consult on before the end of the year, will provide even clearer policies to drive more certain decision-making, including on brownfield development. Our changes will signal a step change and make clear our ambitions to drive forward brownfield development. We expect changes to meet the objectives of the brownfield-first principle. Our proposals will provide a crucial opportunity to test our approach and consider evidence from the sector to ensure that policies are robust and impactful.
We also know that policies can take time to feed through the planning system, and we will continue to keep policy and associated guidance under review. As such, legislative changes are not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that may not support effective delivery, or that sometimes may not allow for local circumstances to be taken into account.
I fear that the amendment would have become a charter for those who may seek to thwart development and the preparation of SDSs. First, the amendment would bite into SDSs. These are higher-level frameworks with the key aim of planning for medium-term to long-term housing and other development needs, aligning infrastructure provision to support that development. SDSs should of course take a brownfield-first approach, which, as I have mentioned, is already enshrined in a national policy framework that will go even further to prioritise brownfield land.
The other aspects of this amendment would create a legislative requirement for increasing densities and reducing travel distances. These are problematic in not allowing for the consideration of local issues—for example, the character of an area, the settlement patterns or the presence of important heritage assets. Consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at local level. As noble Lords know, brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable for development. A policy approach allows us to trust local planning authorities to arrive at appropriate judgments on the suitability of brownfield sites, having weighed up a balance of considerations. I am afraid that having such legislation, alongside creating overly rigid requirements, would serve only to open up SDSs to the increased risk of legal challenges on potentially very local issues that are not the aim or purpose of strategic development strategies. This may slow them down in providing the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.
Therefore, with the strong assurances I have made and the commitments to further strengthen the approach to brownfield land, I hope noble Lords will see the Government’s clear commitment on this and agree with the Motion not to insist. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chair of the development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank the Minister warmly for her engagement and that of her officials with Amendment 33 and for the Government’s support for it, giving this House the opportunity to examine on an affirmative procedure the first use of the national scheme of delegation. I shall not reiterate, as noble Lords have heard it in Committee and on Report, my view of the importance of the national scheme of delegation and, indeed, some issues about how it is to be used and structured. It is not simply a case of how important it is; there are still outstanding issues on the structure of the national scheme of delegation.
I am immensely grateful to the Minister that the Government are going to look that we insist on Amendment 33. I apologise for my poor drafting. Noble Lords know that I try hard on these matters, but I neglected to note that, if it became an affirmative resolution, the structure of the Town and Country Planning Act already provides that other regulations beyond the first use are automatically regarded as negative procedure. There will be further amendment to remedy that when the other place finishes its examination.
While I am standing up, I want to say that I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lady Scott about the scrutiny that we have afforded to this legislation. She and I—and, indeed, the Minister—went all the way through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. We spent 23 days in examination of that Bill, and we have spent only 16 days on this one, so to that extent we have rushed it through. I thoroughly support Motion F.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments on Motion G and assets of community value. I am conscious of the new Bill that will arrive here. I am also very grateful for the remarks of Minister Matthew Pennycook, as they recognise that this is an issue. I was elated when your Lordships voted for the amendment at the time, but I am conscious that some of these things can be done through secondary regulations. As a consequence, I shall not try to test anything further, but I look forward to the consultation coming forward shortly—genuinely shortly—as well, I hope, as some draft regulations at the same time. They are so easy that I have written them for the Government already through my first amendment. I hope that we can make progress so that I do not have to revisit this with a further amendment to the Bill that we will look forward to examining.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I, too, endorse Motion F. The national scheme of delegation strikes the right balance between going far enough and not too far, which is not without difficulty. I urge the Minister and her officials to bear in mind the imperative of avoiding a proliferation of different thresholds. We have the national scheme of delegation thresholds; we have the 150 dwelling threshold announced a few days ago in relation to the exercise of potential haul-in powers to prevent refusals; and we also have coming down the line potential thresholds in relation to standardised Section 106. What I have been hearing from developers in the last few days is that the potential range and proliferation of thresholds—because we also have the EIA thresholds—make decision-making quite difficult in how to calibrate their developments, so the simpler it is, the better.
The Minister also mentioned the forthcoming NPPF consultation. Is she able to indicate when the final version of the new NPPF will be published? I appreciate that she cannot give a precise indication. There is anecdotal evidence that during the consultation on the last NPPF some applications were put on hold because applicants wanted to wait to see the final version. Indeed, there is some evidence that during the passage of this Bill some infrastructure projects have been put on hold so as to benefit from some of the streamlining, so the greater the clarity that can be provided as to how long—we hope that it will be fairly quickly—the post-consultation process will take to produce the new NPPF, the better.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the positive engagement we have had during the Bill, where compromise has been reached on a number of very important issues. It shows that all the hours we have spent discussing and scrutinising the Bill have not been in vain. I am particularly grateful that the Government have seen the light over the requirement of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for an affirmative procedure on the national scheme of delegation. It is an issue on which we on these Benches supported the noble Lord, but we also tabled our own amendments, because we thought it was very important that the first iteration of the national scheme of delegation should be properly and fully scrutinised. We are really pleased that the Government have conceded on that issue.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Motion F to agree with Lords Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. This was a really important amendment, and I am very glad that it has been dealt with in this way, as has Motion G and Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey on the important issue of assets of community value. I look forward to seeing them put in place in future.
We have felt compelled to bring Motion J1 back to the attention of your Lordships’ House. Although we will not press the matter further, it is important that the concerns are placed clearly on record. We do so because the Government’s previous response did not engage with the substance of the issues at stake.
First, the Government have sidestepped the statutory issue entirely. This amendment would place a clear, unambiguous duty on spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield development and urban densification. That duty matters. Yet the Minister’s response relied almost exclusively on guidance, prospective consultations and future proposals. None of that explains why this responsibility should not sit in primary legislation. As we all know, the system is failing precisely because guidance can be overlooked and too often is. Brownfield opportunities are not ignored because they do not exist; they are ignored because the framework does not require public bodies or developers to pursue them.
Secondly, the Government’s response failed to address the sustainability dimension. This amendment is not simply about land categories. It is about shaping the behaviour of the built environment, supporting mixed, walkable communities, reducing travel distances and aligning development patterns with our environmental and economic goals. None of this featured in the Government’s reply, which focused solely on whether brownfield land is being sufficiently identified rather than on how our planning system directs the form, character and quality of the development. Without statutory underpinning, these wider sustainability objectives will continue to be treated as optional—desirable, certainly, but dispensable when inconvenient.
Let me finally address the Minister’s suggestion that our amendment would heighten the risk of legal challenge and that clarity in the NPPF makes such a duty unnecessary. In effect, the Minister defended the status quo, but legal challenge is a feature of any meaningful statutory change—indeed, of any planning decision. The possibility of challenge is not an argument for inaction; it is inherent in the evolution of any policy. A clearer statutory duty would, over time, reduce conflict by giving decision-makers firmer parameters and greater certainty.
I acknowledge that the Minister wrote over the weekend outlining the Government’s intention. Her letter stated that,
“the revised NPPF will provide even clearer policies to drive decision-making, including on brownfield land”.
We accept the Government saying again today that national policy is the most appropriate route for setting planning decisions, that the proposed changes will mark a step change and that they expect these reforms to meet the objectives of the “brownfield first” principle.
However, if Ministers truly believe that these revisions will drive brownfield development, then they must be willing and able to show evidence of success. The proportion of brownfield used must rise meaningfully as a direct result of these changes. Warm words about future consultations are not enough; they must turn into action. This House must be able to see the data and interrogate it, track progress and hold the Government firmly to account. If Ministers are confident in their claims, they should have no hesitation in committing to return to the House with clear, measurable evidence that these reforms are genuinely delivering a brownfield first approach in practice, not just in rhetoric. Until that proof is forthcoming, our concerns remain.
We live on a small island. Food security is critical in the world we live in. This Bill has taken our agricultural land for energy use and housing. Greenfields produce food for our nation; wheat and potatoes cannot be produced on urban brownfield sites.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate; I will address the points that have been raised during our discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Banner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their endorsement of our position on Motion F. I always hope that when a good idea comes forward, we will not hesitate to accept it; that was a good idea, and we will be moving forward with it.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I very much look forward to the debates we will have on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It is a different approach to assets of community value. It expands the definitions of assets of community value, including sporting and recreational assets, it gives longer for communities to do the work needed to enact this right, and it gives a right to buy approach, which I hope we will have good debates on.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, made a very important point about avoiding the proliferation of thresholds, and I will take that back. I hope he will continue to work with us on that, as he does on other issues.
In relation to the NPPF consultation, I appreciate that delay causes uncertainty. We are hoping to do it by the end of the year. Planning is a dynamic process. When we were having debates with the Housing Minister and some developers, he said that they cannot always be waiting for the next thing to come along. This is the planning Bill at the moment. The NPPF is the NPPF. We want people to get on and build the infrastructure and housing we need. There may be changes in the future, but planning is always going to be dynamic and will have to change as other things change. However, it is important we make sure the NPPF is fit for purpose, and we get this planning Bill through so we can get on and deliver what we need to.
I hope I picked up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on assets of community value in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
On the important point about brownfield sites and contaminated sites made by the noble Baroness, the viability PPG already factors in potential brownfield challenges. The guidance on defining costs notes that brownfield sites may have abnormal costs associated with them. We are continuing to look at this as we go through because there are some sites with high levels of contamination. The noble Baroness may be aware that I visited Stoke-on-Trent recently, which has some sites on former mining areas. They are an issue, and we continue to keep it under review, as she would expect.
Her points about the Minister’s announcement on railways stations make the point that we have been arguing around brownfield sites. For the most part, the land around railway stations can be considered brownfield sites. We want to make sure that we make the most of those sites, which have good transport links and are often essential to the economy of an area. This is why the Minister felt that it was appropriate, in that case, to make that a consideration—that is, where it looked like applications there might be refused, they could be called in. Of course, communities still get the opportunity to have their say in that process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A.
37A: Because the Commons consider that measures in respect of permitted development rights should be taken forward through secondary legislation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 38A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak also to Motions H1, K and K1. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for their amendments in lieu relating to chalk streams and environmental delivery plans.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for tabling Lords Amendment 38B. I also thank him for his letter, which I received today; I hope to respond to him in my remarks from the Dispatch Box. His amendment moves away from the wide-ranging amendment that he previously sought to add to the Bill, which was not workable. This amendment seeks to introduce guidance for how strategic planning authorities must take into account the need to define, protect and enhance chalk streams through spatial development strategies. I recognise and appreciate the positive intent of the amendment, and I emphasise once again that the Government are absolutely determined to restore and improve the nation’s chalk streams. I should highlight that any provisions in regulations made by statutory instrument are legislative requirements, rather than guidance; this amendment refers to both terms.
We set out in the other place that we do not believe that legislation requiring spatial development strategies is the best place to protect these vital ecosystems. Furthermore, new legislation on this specific matter would duplicate existing policy on the issue—policy that we have already committed to update with specific reference to chalk streams. Strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s-length bodies, such as the Environment Agency, that have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas; those are the two main issues that affect the viability of chalk streams. The spatial development strategies will be high-level frameworks for housing, growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites.
Importantly, spatial development strategies will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. As locally led spatial exercises, those local nature recovery strategies will—drawing on river basin management plans—be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them. Local nature recovery strategies, which include important chalk streams in Wiltshire, Berkshire and Norfolk, are already doing this. We want to build on these welcome efforts. I can, therefore, make it clear today that, in responding to this amendment in the other place, the Government committed to amend statutory guidance to encourage chalk streams to be featured prominently in local nature recovery strategies going forward.
On the planning system, which is obviously the focus of this Bill, it remains the Government’s view that the conservation of chalk streams is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy, which applies to all tiers of the planning system from strategic policies to individual planning applications. As per the commitment made by the Housing and Planning Minister in the other place on 13 November, which I referred to a moment ago, the Government will now include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision-making that we intend to consult on before the end of this year. This will ensure that chalk streams are explicitly recognised as features of high environmental value in national planning policy; and that clear expectations are set for plan-makers and decision-makers in respect of managing the impacts of development on these sensitive water bodies.
As noble Lords are well aware, among the most pressing of the multiple pressures facing chalk steams are systemic issues in the water system. The Government are absolutely determined to take bold action to address pollution and over-abstraction. Measures that will safeguard and restore chalk streams are already embedded into our ambitious programme of reforms to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
Although it does not directly relate to the planning system, in order to provide noble Lords with additional reassurance on the Government’s intentions in this area, I can commit today that the Government will embed actions to improve chalk streams into the water White Paper, which will be published before the end of the year. That White Paper will feed directly into the development of forthcoming legislation in this area.
I appreciate entirely the strength of feeling on this issue. The Housing and Planning Minister and I have very much appreciated the considered engagement that we have had on this matter, as well as the opportunity to discuss how we can best achieve what are, ultimately, shared priorities. I hope that, through the assurances the Government have now provided in respect of the water White Paper, the LNRS statutory guidance and forthcoming changes to national planning policy, noble Lords are reassured that these vital ecosystems will soon get the recognition and protection that they deserve.
I turn to Amendments 40B and 40C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. The other place has chosen to reinstate the original drafting of Clause 55—now Clause 63—so that EDPs are no longer limited to a closed list of environmental impacts. I am incredibly grateful for the continued engagement on this amendment from Peers, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis, Lady Young and Lady Grender, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Roborough, who have given up their time to work with the Government to consider this issue. These discussions have made it clear that the aim of the original amendment was not to restrict the ability of EDPs to support environmental features where appropriate but to seek assurances in two key areas: how the Government will prioritise EDPs going forward; and how we will embed the lessons from early EDPs into the future pipeline of EDPs.
The proposed amendment in lieu seeks to develop this position, but I will make further commitments on these points today; I hope that they will provide noble Lords with the assurances they need to support the Government’s position. Before I set out these commitments, I again highlight that the nature restoration fund is a targeted tool designed to address the specific impact of development on a specific environmental feature. This targeted approach means two things: first, that an EDP would only ever be brought forward where there is a clear case that an environmental feature is affecting development consent, as it simply would not make sense to bring forward EDPs where there is no need to do so; and, secondly, that an EDP could only ever be put in place where conservation measures would materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature.
As was highlighted in the other place, it is right that we are guided by the science. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has particularly strong feelings about this, and she is quite right to have them. The legislation ensures that the design, making and delivery of EDPs are evidence-led. As we set out in the other place, we know that strategic approaches can work for both sites and species, as demonstrated through the district level licensing scheme for great crested newts and our experience of nutrient mitigation schemes to date.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill requires Natural England to notify the Secretary of State of its intention to develop an EDP, which ensures that the Secretary of State has direct oversight of the development of EDPs as well as their role in considering whether to formally approve an EDP. This clear mechanism ensures that there is clarity as to when a new EDP is being prepared. Of course, all EDPs will be subject to public consultation before they are sent to the Secretary of State to consider.
On learning from the early EDPs, the Bill provides a number of important safeguards. The first is the ongoing requirement for monitoring, which will ensure that conservation measures are performing as intended, with back-up measures being deployed if there is underperformance. This not only ensures that EDPs are subject to ongoing review but goes beyond the monitoring requirements under the existing system and means we will capture important data about the performance of conservation measures, which will inform future EDPs.
The second key limb in the legislation is the reporting requirements, which set minimum reporting periods for individual EDPs that reinforce the monitoring provisions by requiring a further assessment as to whether the EDP is on track to meet the overall improvement test.
There is also a wider annual reporting requirement across the entire nature restoration fund, which will set out all the EDPs that are in force as well as the pipeline of any EDPs being prepared. Taken together, we hope it is clear that the Bill provides assurances, both at the point of development of EDPs and through to implementation, that EDPs can be used only where they can be shown to work.
However, throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have sought to ensure that all parliamentarians and stakeholders can have confidence that the new regime would deliver the win-win for development and nature that we envisage. With this in mind, we want to provide additional assurance that EDPs will be appropriately sequenced.
As we have set out before, the nature restoration fund is self-limiting by design, in that an EDP can be put in place only where it can be shown to materially outweigh the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature using the best available scientific evidence.
However, as a first step in respect of sequencing, I commit that the first EDPs will address nutrient pollution only. This is an area where we have substantial first-hand evidence that a strategic approach works. It is also an area in which Natural England has already proved its expertise in supporting the delivery of mitigation across the country. Taking this approach will therefore provide us with a useful test case to demonstrate both the impact of EDPs and Natural England’s ability to deliver. We will then pay particular attention to the results of the regular monitoring and reporting of these early EDPs. These monitoring and reporting requirements ensure transparency and provide the opportunity for both government scrutiny and external scrutiny of the ongoing impact and delivery of EDPs.
From our engagement across the Bill, we know that independent and expert bodies, such as the Environmental Audit Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection, may wish to undertake scrutiny of this kind. This will support the assurance of the nature restoration fund’s delivery and evolution. The Government look forward to working closely with these bodies as we move forward with the nature restoration fund.
While the Bill provides for this transparent approach, I will also commit to the Government returning to the House once the first nutrient EDPs are made to issue a statement on the initial learnings from their development and implementation. It will only be after the House has seen this statement that a Secretary of State will make any further EDPs on other environmental issues. While Natural England may wish to undertake preparatory work in parallel on potential future EDPs, this approach will ensure that any learning from the first nutrients EDP is considered before any EDPs beyond nutrients are made and operational.
As we move forward with implementation, we are incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for their offer to continue to work with the Government as we progress with developing crystal clear guidance to ensure that developers, environmental groups and communities can navigate this new system effectively. This collaborative approach will ensure the targeted tools unlock the positive outcomes that I know we all want to see. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 38B in lieu—
“Chalk streams
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, provide guidance to strategic planning authorities on how they must, in delivering their planning functions, take into account the need to define, protect and enhance chalk stream habitats.
(2) 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.””
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful for the strong support that my earlier Amendment 38 gained on Report. Chalk streams are globally rare habitats of which we have 85% in England. We simply must protect them and other irreplaceable habitats, because we have lost so much of this nation’s nature already.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, Motion K1 is in my name. I have a whole speech written but I am not going to give it because I greatly appreciate the words that came from the Minister.
The concerns around the EDPs are critical. Even this morning I had many emails in my inbox from all walks of life—from builders, nature conservation people and even other Peers—saying, “Please push on this one”. These EDPs are a very ambitious, bold new framework and we simply do not know how successful they will be. Therefore, this amendment is to say, please can we try it on the thing that is the biggest blockage first, then sequentially work on it once we have the evidence base? The Minister, other Peers and I had a very constructive meeting and an exchange of letters. The Government have listened in this case. We will start with nutrients and build from that, but we will learn on the way with the evidence. It is very important that this evidence comes back to this House and that an independent body looks at that evidence base, so that Natural England is not marking its own homework. That has always been a concern for many.
I thank the Minister for such helpful discussions. I believe that we will end up understanding how EDPs will work to effect for the biggest blockers, but for nature as well.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
I want to speak briefly to Motion K1. I too will not be giving the speech that I prepared, in the light of the assurances from the Minister, for which I am very grateful as this is a very important area. However, I hope that she can give a couple of clarifications.
First, the Minister mentioned public consultation on EDPs. How will that work? This independent evaluation of the evidence is so important, so it would be good to hear exactly how that public consultation will be done. It is fantastic that, as my noble friend Lady Willis just mentioned, the evidence is being assessed by an independent body, but who exactly is doing the monitoring and gathering the evidence? Is it Natural England, or are independent bodies doing it? Who is then assessing the evidence? Is that independently done?
Secondly, over what period is the monitoring of these first EDPs to be done before the report comes back to the House? It is important that we get the longer-term evidence before we commit to any more. The example of great crested newts has been given multiple times. It is a great species for doing district-wide licensing, but it has specific characteristics which means it is good for that, and we have a lot of knowledge and good data. The ponds for them are dug before destruction of their existing habitat, and there is a minimum 25-year commitment to those ponds. It is not clear that this will be the case for the new EDPs. It would be great to hear about the evidence-gathering periods and what period is anticipated for the commitments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to support very strongly Motion H1 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I have two concerns about the Government’s response. The first is the issue of protection. That is not present at the moment; it is severely lacking. I have visited chalk streams and seen streams that are probably beyond recovery. It is still happening, so there is a real need for urgency to protect the rest of what we have, and perhaps to instigate measures to recover them.
Secondly, the Minister mentioned two organisations that, in my view as a Green, have been largely discredited in their protection of the environment: Natural England and the Environment Agency. Somehow, neither of them actually does what it is meant to do, and certainly not within the parameters of what one would expect. This is urgent: you cannot just keep leaving it to consultation and finding out more facts and details—it has to happen.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the considerable amount of time she has given to so many of us in these discussions, particularly on Motions H1 and K1 in this group.
First, on K1—this is the wrong order, but I am going to do it that way anyway—I particularly welcome this new and additional commitment from the Dispatch Box to concentrating on nutrient pollution. That is a very welcome development today, and I support the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, in her response to that.
With regard to H1, sadly, we feel there is still progress to be made. The Minister will be aware that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has looked at and reflected on the criticism made in the House of Commons of spatial development strategies and their use, and has therefore provided us with an amendment this evening which uses guidance, backed by regulation. We believe that this approach is technically right and that it is possible to do this.
The second point is about time being of the essence. The Minister expressed frustration at the pace at which protection of chalk streams was moving under the previous Government. We are very much at the 11th hour, and time is so precious that embedding something in this legislation, even now, rather than waiting for a White Paper or a Bill next year—goodness knows how long that will take—is the very kernel of the argument for pressing the House of Commons to think again.
We are here in numbers. If the right reverend Prelate decides to test the opinion of the House, I hope that the Conservative Benches will join with us and the Cross Benches and express a strong opinion on this.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to Motion K1. I join others in thanking the Minister for her statement from the Dispatch Box, which meets many of the concerns we had, and for the time she and other Ministers spent discussing this with us.
I just wanted to allude to one part of her statement, on the development of guidance. A lot of the devil will be in the detail of how builders actually receive guidance and respond to it. One is particularly concerned about small builders, who do not have a legal team to interpret the guidance or spend a lot of time trying to understand it.
My noble friend Lady Willis and I have spent quite a lot of time trying to understand how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together: the habitat regulations, the nature restoration fund, the EDPs and the biodiversity net gain requirements. We have produced our own flow chart, the Minister has provided flow charts, and we are still somewhat in the dark.
It is of course possible that the combined brains of two Oxford professors are not enough to tackle the complexity of this matter, but we have given it quite a lot of effort. Therefore, I very much welcome the Minister’s stating she will involve us both in helping to simplify the guidance in a way that will actually make it useful and practically helpful to builders and developers, particularly those running small businesses.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the discussions and assurances she has given us on Motion K1. I was rather fond of Motion K1 and would have preferred the amendments in it being in the Bill—it represented a fair compromise. The reasons why it is very important are threefold. One is partly to provide some pacing for Natural England, because there is a real potential for it to overextend itself and not do any of the EDPs very well as a result.
Secondly, there needs to be proper evaluation, because this is a very new and untried system. The monitoring and evaluation should be not just about biodiversity but about whether this works for developers, because the whole point of the exercise is to try to unlock delays, and it is quite a complicated system for developers to operate in. So, on the early ones, we need to really examine our conscience and see whether they are delivering both for biodiversity and for speeding up the development process.
Thirdly, clarity for developers is important, and I very much welcome the fact that there will be a pipeline in the annual report that will enable developers to see what EDPs are likely to come up for development in the future. The usual situation, of course, is that when middle ground has been filled by concessions and assurances, you ask yourself why they cannot just be expressed in statute, since they meet many of the points that we have raised.
However, I recognise that this is probably as far as we will get on this one. I welcome the assurances and concessions that have come in the direction of the concerns that we have expressed.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, on Motion K1, I want underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said about the need for independence in the monitoring and evaluation. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, referred to it, but I am not sure that the Minister did so—forgive me if I missed it. Can we please hear from her on this, just to put it beyond doubt?
On the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about the need for flowcharts, we are definitely going to need a definitive agreed one.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, if chalk streams are in a moment of crisis, this amendment does not bounce the Secretary of State into action. It simply says:
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, provide guidance”.
So, from day one, the Secretary of State has 12 months to do it. If it is urgent, what is put here is absolutely necessary in the sense that 85% of the entire world’s chalk streams are in England and the habitat could easily be damaged. Within those 12 months, the Secretary of State can consult and bring together a team of people who will give him good guidance as to how he can put it in a statutory instrument. I have read the House of Commons reasons for disagreeing this. I think they just need to get on with it.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches and many other noble Lords have challenged the necessity for Part 3 throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. The Government have made a number of amendments, which have improved the Bill, to reintroduce nature protections and give more comfort on the Bill’s operation in relation to nature and the rural economy. We also welcome the Minister’s assurances and commitments around the use of compulsory purchase powers.
However, we supported the restriction of EDPs to nutrient neutrality, water and air quality in Committee and on Report, as well as protections for our chalk streams. The application of nutrient neutrality rules by Natural England is the major restriction on planning related to the natural environment. Before I go on, I again draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer, landowner, forester, and a developer of housing, commercial premises, and renewable energy.
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Young of Old Scone, for pursuing these restrictions on EDPs, and all those who supported them. The Minister has been generous with her time and that of her officials throughout the passage of this Bill, and our discussions around these and other amendments have been thoughtful and constructive. I am grateful for the Government’s commitments and concessions laid out today. They may not go as far as we might have wished. However, these commitments will allow Parliament to scrutinise the progress of EDPs and hold the Government to account over their extension—although I doubt, as a hereditary Peer, that I will be here to be part of that.
I want to put two challenges related to nutrient neutrality to the Minister. The Government refused to accept my amendments that sought not to reimpose habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. My Division was narrowly disagreed with. I have made the Government aware that, since that debate, this issue is already restricting planning consent, with a further 550 homes likely to be blocked in Somerset, as the council anticipates the reintroduction of those regulations in this Bill. What consideration has the Minister given to preventing the Bill blocking new housebuilding in this way?
Natural England provided some interesting data in response to freedom of information requests. In 2023, it promised Ministers to unlock 40,000 homes from nutrient neutrality restrictions with £33.5 million of taxpayer funding. In responding to this freedom of information request, it disclosed that it has spent over £28 million, including over £4 million on administration, and generated enough units to unlock only 11,000 homes. The scrutiny of these EDPs will need to be forensic and rigorous before Natural England should be allowed and trusted to attempt them in far more complicated areas.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the Government have made thoughtful concessions. We on these Benches are satisfied that this will provide a good opportunity for scrutiny.
Chalk streams face urgent and growing pressures, as others have laid out in this debate, yet the tools we rely on to protect them are still not fully in place. The Government have pointed to local nature recovery strategies as part of the solution, but without the long-promised regulations giving them real weight in the planning system, they simply do not have the bite required. Given the scale of the threat from development footprints, pollution and overabstraction, we cannot afford further delay, nor can we wait until 2030 for the abstraction licence reforms to take effect. We must ensure that spatial development strategies can direct development away from vulnerable chalk stream catchments. It is a practical and necessary step to prevent irreversible harm to these globally rare habitats. Although we support Amendment 38B’s intent, we would not be able to support it in a Division today, for the reasons laid out by my noble friend Lady Scott, but we will look to find other avenues to push forward this agenda.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, but I want also to give a general statement of thanks to everybody who has engaged with this Bill. We have discussed a huge variety of topics and gone through some very technical issues. I have been very grateful for noble Lords’ patience as I have sought to find answers to the questions that have arisen during our debates, but also for the willingness—which is the best aspect of this House—to move these debates forward constructively and helpfully. I have really appreciated that, and I am very grateful for the many meetings that we have had and the late nights that we have sat over the course of this Bill. I give you all my great thanks for that work.
I will respond now to some of the points raised in the debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich mentioned that local nature recovery strategies do not capture the catchment area of a river. He points to the exact reason why we think the water White Paper and the Bill that will follow it are vital for the proper protection of chalk streams that we are all seeking. We know the main issues facing chalk streams. I cannot remember who talked about it—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—but I too have stood in more than one chalk stream, because I live in Hertfordshire, where we have a lot of them, and I know that the issues of abstraction and pollution cannot be addressed in this way. They need to be addressed through the forthcoming water Bill, and my colleagues in Defra are keen to do that. The National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out planning policies and decisions, should protect chalk streams as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value, and local plans should identify, map and safeguard them as local wildlife-rich habitats.
I liked the phrase that the right reverend Prelate used, which was that housing and development should fly in formation with nature. I totally agree. I hope that, as we have gone through the process of the Bill, noble Lords will have noted that it is the Government’s intention, as we pursue the building of homes and infrastructure, to see a win-win for both nature and development in order to deliver what we need while protecting the important natural resources around us.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her remarks. I know that the concerns around EDPs are real. She spoke about our ambitious and bold new framework, but we have listened. In local government we have a test-and-learn approach, because we all learn from each other as well as from things we have done ourselves. I hope the noble Baroness and other Peers will agree that the commitments I have set out today enable us to do that with EDPs as well. I am grateful to her and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for all the work that they have done on this issue. Their flow chart was a great help. I was not trying to mark their homework, and I hope they will forgive me; we were just trying to expand the flow chart that they had made, to make it, I hope, more helpful. We will continue to work with them on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, asked about consultation. Natural England is required to consult the public and any public authority that it considers relevant on a draft EDP for a period of at least 28 working days. Natural England must seek the views of relevant local planning authorities as part of its consultation. I am afraid it is not possible to give a timeframe for when we will return to the House ahead of the first EDP being developed. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that each EDP will need to include monitoring requirements that will form part of the draft EDP when put out for consultation, so she will see the timeframe set out as we bring those EDPs forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said she did not like the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection, the organisations that I was looking to, to work with Natural England. Natural England will have the data, but those organisations will help provide the scrutiny for this. Without using those organisations, I do not know where we go with that, but I hope we will be able to convince her that they are organisations that can do this effectively. We are willing to listen to any suggestions that she may have.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her welcome for the EDPs issue. I understand that she may have ongoing concerns on chalk streams, although I hope I have reassured her on some of those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to the plethora we now have of habitat regs, EDPs and biodiversity net gain. We need to simplify the guidance on this, and I hope that he will continue to work with us on that mission.
My noble friend Lady Young spoke about clarity for developers. That is exactly what we are trying to deliver as part of the Bill, and I am grateful to all Peers who have helped us to do that.
I hope I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on the independence of scrutiny. We want to use organisations that are well respected to help with the scrutiny of the EDPs.
I will reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on the habitat regs on Ramsar sites in Somerset. On the issue of Natural England data and unlocking homes, these things have a cumulative effect, so I hope that the money that Natural England has spent will help it to have the structures and processes in place to continue to work with us to deliver the homes that we all want to see. I hope that that work is ongoing. I look forward to working with Natural England and others.
In the meantime, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords of our intention to protect our precious chalk streams. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, I live in Hertfordshire; it is definitely in my interests to protect those chalk streams. I believe that we now have the right processes in place, and I hope that the reassurances we have given over the sequencing of EDPs will help noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The Minister gave me encouraging reassurance about independence and referred to two bodies that would be doing the monitoring and evaluation. Could she repeat for me—I think I missed it—which bodies they are? Are they fully independent of Natural England and the Environment Agency?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have not made an approach to these organisations, so I do not want to commit them to doing this, but if the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection wanted to get involved in the scrutiny of EDPs, we would be very happy to facilitate that.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this debate and in particular the Minister, for her customary care in the answers she has given us.
What we agree on, across all sides of this House, is that chalk streams are precious, irreplaceable habitats that are gravely endangered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for giving a sense that he would like to continue to press this in other ways. My view remains that we need clear legal protections for chalk streams and other irreplaceable habitats so that developers and planners know where they stand and the public can be reassured that protections will not easily be wiped out overnight. With this in mind, I seek to test the will of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 40A.
ExxonMobil: Mossmorran
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition’s thoughts are with the 450 workers at Exxon Mobil’s Fife plant, who now face losing their livelihoods. That plant had been a cornerstone of chemical production in the United Kingdom for 40 years. These are skilled people—proud people—and whole communities are now wondering what comes next. They deserve our sympathy, of course, but sympathy will not keep an industry alive. This closure was not unavoidable; it is happening because of this Government’s policies.
The chief executive of the Society of Chemical Industry, Sharon Todd, put it starkly:
“Without further government action to address high energy costs for industry, and a greater consideration of the importance of fossil carbon for material feedstocks, industrial resilience in the UK is undermined and further closures are increasingly likely”.
What a verdict—and it is one that the Government cannot pretend they have not heard. We on these Benches have warned Ministers repeatedly. Industry has warned them repeatedly. Everyone who actually makes things in this country has warned them repeatedly.
But the Government simply will not listen, and the price of this stubbornness is being paid by workers, manufacturers and communities up and down the country. ExxonMobil is not alone; we are seeing exactly the same story in steel. Everywhere you look, energy-intensive industries are struggling with the same crushing energy costs, and the pattern is not subtle. The Government’s energy policy is pulling in the opposite direction to its supposed number one priority of growth. You cannot claim to have a plan for growth while presiding over some of the highest electricity prices in Europe. It just does not add up.
Only a few weeks ago, the US ambassador to the UK, Warren Stephens, warned Ministers that high electricity prices are deterring investment from the world’s strongest economy and our closest ally historically. Then we have ExxonMobil’s UK chairman, Paul Greenwood, who said that the company had spent months warning the Government about the risks to the plant, only to be ignored. He said that
“these are deliberate Government policies that are undermining us”.
When global companies start talking like that, something is seriously wrong.
This closure lands at the same moment that Make UK published a report warning that surging energy costs and cumulative taxes are threatening the future of Britain’s industrial base. Ministers have no excuses left. These are the results of decisions made in Whitehall: a slow-motion sustained act of industrial self-harm. Even Unite and GMB—hardly allies of these Benches—warned Ministers that their ban on new oil and gas development would devastate supply chains and destroy skilled jobs. When both employers and unions are saying the same thing, it seems that only this Government could fail to hear it.
And what exactly has this achieved for the environment? Nothing, because now we simply import more oil and gas instead of producing it ourselves. Meanwhile, the Minister in the other place, the Secretary of State for Net Zero, posts on X claiming that bills remain high due to fossil fuel dependence, yet Ofgem has confirmed that policy costs are the major driver.
Minister can no longer hide from the consequences of their own decisions. We have major international investors describing the UK as “mismanaged” and “uninvestable”. South Africa’s richest woman called Britain a “scary country”, saying that she
“wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole”.
When global investors are talking about the UK in those terms, something has gone profoundly wrong.
As we said during the steel debate a few weeks ago, high energy costs and new unemployment burdens looming from the Employment Rights Bill, plus scatter-brained and ideological policies coming out of DESNZ, are all squeezing the life out of British industry. Will the Government reverse their ban on North Sea oil and gas? Will they stop pouring unaffordable subsidies into wind and solar while heavy industry collapses under the weight of energy costs, or are they determined to preside over a full-scale de-industrialisation? British workers, British industries and British communities deserve a lot better than this; they deserve a Government who listen, support industry and understand growth, and the Government are failing on all three counts.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is quite clearly a blow for the area of Fife, and especially for the direct and indirect workers of the plant. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, our thoughts go to them and their families as they seek to find ways of coming to terms with the blow.
The closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. The company has talked about supporting its employers and possible relocation available for some, but what about contractors and the wider supply chain? As far as I am aware, no task force has yet been set up to manage this, so can the Minister please update your Lordships’ House on how the wider workforce will be helped as this crisis bites? It is reported that only around 50 staff are being offered jobs, and nearly 500 miles away in Hampshire. Can the Minister confirm how many have actually agreed to relocate? What are the Government doing to protect and create highly skilled, high-quality jobs located for those who cannot move far from their homes, their communities and their wider family? More generally, much is made of the transition to net zero, which we wholeheartedly support, but there is a danger of the old jobs disappearing more quickly than the new ones are being created, and this mismatch will make growth very difficult, if not impossible.
There has, not unexpectedly, been some finger-pointing—indeed, we just saw some—trying to work out who is to blame for this. But we should understand that this plant has been in trouble and making a loss for five years. If economic and trading environments are causing the closure, both this Government and the last Government are culpable. But I also point to Brexit. All the products made at Mossmorran are exported to the EU. Can the Minister outline how much Brexit contributed to the plant’s demise? Given that there will no longer be these exports from the plant, what is the effect on our balance of trade?
This is, of course, a further blow for the Scottish economy and UK-wide manufacturing, and it comes fast on the heels of other company closures. The common denominator seems to be a combination of long-standing depressed demand alongside the policy environment—and the overwhelming issue, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is the cost of energy. Energy was a problem when the noble Lord was in government and it remains a problem now. This is not to downplay today’s news confirming the £420 million a year committed to reduce electricity costs for the UK’s most energy-intensive industries—but that is jam tomorrow; it does not start until 2027.
There is a desperate need for further and more rapid intervention, as many UK chemicals operations face risk of closure before the British industrial competitiveness scheme, as it is called, comes into effect the year after next. There also remains considerable uncertainty about which businesses will benefit from this new support. Can the Minister fill us in on what the process will be for deciding which businesses and sectors qualify for this subsidy? What specific steps are the Government taking for the here and now? We understand what is happening in 2027, and we have seen the long look into the future that is called the industrial strategy, but what is happening now? We need to find a way of making sure that there is long-term investment in our manufacturing and chemicals industry.
The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs in Scotland, so why is there no meaningful mention of them in the Statement? Will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government and when, and how the Minister sees the role of the Scottish Government going forward?
To conclude, energy-intensive industries are in decline across the UK. Every chemical business across the UK is paying more for its energy than competitors elsewhere, as was the case under the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, as much as 400% higher than in America. Closures at Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost. Britain’s once dominant chemical industry is continuing to suffer. The UK’s chemical output has reached its lowest level for a decade. The latest business survey of members of the Chemical Industries Association shows that 60% of chemical businesses report falling sales with a further 20% seeing no growth. More worryingly, many report strategic reviews.
Closures reduce our already dwindling industrial capacity and reduce our ability to deliver essential materials for our country’s critical national infrastructure, be it health, energy, food or defence. If the Government want to continue to have a chemical industry, then we need much more action to address these unsustainable costs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their statements today, and I entirely agree that our thoughts are with the workers and the families of those affected by the closure.
While this Government inherited a precarious economic position from the previous Administration, it is imperative that we continue to move forward and pursue the right pro-innovation, pro-business policies which generate growth. We were disappointed to learn of Exxon’s announcement of the closure of its Fife ethylene plant. This follows months of engagement with the company and a commitment to explore all the opportunities to retain the site’s operations. However, it is my understanding that there was no credible buyer for the plant. Of course, if there are potential purchasers who wish to explore what is possible, the Government would be happy to work with them. We would be happy to find a solution, whether that is the ongoing operation of the plant or repurposing the site for new uses.
As noble Lords will know, the Government and ExxonMobil have been discussing the operating environment around the plant since April, and officials endeavoured to meet Exxon every week since August. Last weekend, Ministers from across government were in contact with the company to discuss this decision, and I expect there will be further conversations over the coming months. The Minister for Industry was clear that the Government are prepared to step in and support industry where it is feasible to do so, as we did with Harland & Wolff, Tata Steel and most recently British Steel. Sadly, in this instance, the Government are not able to provide support without a fundamentally sound business proposition. No intervention would represent value for money without one.
We know that it is a concerning time for those affected, which is why our focus is now on supporting the workforce. The Minister for Industry met Unite to explore options for supporting the affected employees, and Exxon is taking steps to mitigate the impact of its closure decision, as any responsible company would, with some employees being retained to support the decommissioning of the site and others being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon’s other assets at Fawley and Southampton. Discussions about the precise allocation of those roles are ongoing and I cannot confirm at this time exactly how many people have decided to make the transition to other sites. Regrettably, this falls short of supporting the entire workforce in finding new employment, which is why the Department for Work and Pensions is engaged in supporting those impacted. Officials in the department are also in contact with representatives from Fife Council and the Scottish Government and are working together on a task force to provide further support. Today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the Scottish Government and the Fife local authority to convene the first of those discussions and will continue with that task force over the coming months.
I stress that this closure is not representative of UK industry as a whole. Through our modern industrial strategy, we are channelling support to the eight growth sectors of the economy, including clean energy, defence and advanced manufacturing—all areas in which Scotland is incredibly strong. Far from being uninvestable, since July, we have seen more than £250 billion of investment committed into the UK, alongside 450,000 jobs. Only recently, we have seen further investment into AI growth zones and small modular reactors.
Both noble Lords talked about energy costs. Your Lordships know that bringing down energy costs for British businesses is a key part of our industrial strategy. Although it is important to note that electricity costs were not a major factor behind this site’s closure, we are pressing ahead with unprecedented support for our energy-intensive industries so that they can properly compete and win in the global economy. Last month, we pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement, glass and chemicals; this discount will slash costs for a whole host of businesses not just in England but across the UK. We know that around 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to this one change.
To that end, our new British industrial competitiveness scheme, announced for consultation today, will reduce electricity costs for more than 7,000 eligible manufacturing businesses. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt hour, or up to 25%, from April 2027; that will cover the foundational and frontier areas, as defined in the industrial strategy. This will be subject to further consultation, as set out in the papers today.
On the point about engaging and working with the devolved Governments, the Scottish Government have been heavily involved in the ExxonMobil discussions, with meetings at the highest level. I thank my colleagues, both there and in the UK Government, who have been engaging on this issue for such a long time and trying to find a way forward. We will continue to work constructively together both to support the hard-working employees of the Fife plant and to ensure that they are fully supported over the coming weeks and months.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, last week was another sad one for the UK oil and petrochemicals industry, as well as for the company employees, contractors and those in the general supply chain who rely on it. The imminent closure of Mossmorran comes in addition to the Grangemouth and Lindsey refineries. What comes next? There is not much left.
Mr Greenwood, the chairman of ExxonMobil UK, mentioned four reasons why the plant at Mossmorran is being closed. Due to time, I will concentrate on just one: the decline in a cheap and abundant source of ethane from the North Sea. We know that there is a large untapped supply of ethane in the North Sea, but this Government have increased taxation on the producers in various ways to prohibit them making any money—making them less competitive—and have prevented any more licences being issued in this basin. This has a snowball effect of closing the North Sea down, reducing a revenue stream to the Exchequer and seeing the workforce continue to fall, as well as, by inference, increasing hydrocarbon imports from overseas where job numbers go from strength to strength.
Equally important are the significantly increasing carbon emissions on a global scale. Just because the imports arrive in the UK emissions-free does not mean that we are not responsible for the increase in emissions from our own production, which are significantly less. Production continues elsewhere in the world and its subsequent transport for our use is more emissions-intensive.
Does the Minister agree with me that this country must, therefore, ensure the continued and increased flow of North Sea hydrocarbon production, rather than having to increasingly purchase product from overseas? This would keep the significant but rapidly reducing onshore and offshore oil and gas industry alive for the foreseeable future; more importantly, it would keep the remaining jobs secure. Electricity generation, green or otherwise, will not satisfy our complete energy needs for many decades to come—if ever—so why do this Government continue to penalise this nation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We are co-ordinating the scale-up of industries that will shape the future of the North Sea, going as far as wider offshore wind, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen. The Government have committed over £9.4 billion in investment to carbon capture, with a total of £22 billion for hydrogen and carbon capture this Parliament. That is a huge, positive step for our economy and for jobs in the North Sea.
Furthermore, the clean energy jobs plan—which has £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish Governments—will support oil and gas workers in training to access the opportunities in clean energy to create the jobs of the future. Looking at the last few years, there was a 75% reduction in oil and gas production between 1999 and 2024. So this is a very long-term trend in the availability of carbon products from the North Sea, not something that has happened just in recent times.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my registered interests. I welcome the Minister’s statement, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the establishment of a task force, which has happened since the Statement was made in the other place. I declare an interest as a former Industry Minister in Scotland, where there has been experience over the last 25 years of how to respond to closures such as these. Those sorts of task forces, to work well, need to be quickly established, as we have seen in this case. However, they also need to focus as broadly as possible, including on opportunities for outplacement, retraining, preferential access to local colleges, dedicated pathways into other employment opportunities and on the future of the site itself, involving remediation and the possible identification of other investors who would be interested, if not in plastics production, then in associated activity.
For all these reasons, can the Minister confirm the breadth of the scope of the task force? Can she also confirm that His Majesty’s Government will work very closely with the Scottish Government, which have their own PACE initiative—the partnership for continuing employment—in cases such as these?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend makes some very important points about the importance of swift and collaborative action, partnership with all those who can assist in supporting the workers in this situation and looking at their individual needs and the economic opportunities that are available today, and training them for the future.
She is right that the task force has been established, and my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander met with Fife Council and the Scottish Government earlier today. The Government are committed to working with them to deliver a local response and, more broadly, to mitigate the impact on workers. That will include working with the partnership action for continuing employment and looking to support the 50 employees who are going to be retained to support the decommissioning until 2028, as well as the 50 who are being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon’s other assets.
My noble friend makes a very good point about looking broadly and making sure that this is in the context of the local economy.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister know any chief financial officer who talks down prospects for their company? Why does she think the Chancellor spent nine months talking down the UK economy, which has contributed to Grangemouth, Mossmorran and other factories closing down and the subsequent loss of jobs?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I do not agree with that commentary on our approach to the economy. In fact, I want to take some time to talk about the positive signs in the UK economy. The UK was the fastest-growing G7 economy over the first half of the year, with cumulative GDP growth at 0.9%. The IMF forecast the UK to be the second-fastest-growing economy in the G7 in 2025 and the third-fastest in 2026. I am sure that noble Lords frequently hear the Chancellor and the Prime Minister talking about the value of the inward investment into the United Kingdom. They have been integral to securing that inward investment, as this is an extremely investable country.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is clearly a tragedy for the petrochemical industry in terms of this plant in Scotland. However, in a way, it is only a precursor for the tsunami that is about to happen to the steel industry if we are not careful. As a third country to the European Union—which we unfortunately are now, due to the Conservative Party—we will now face 50% tariffs on our steel industry, 80% of our exports of which go to the European Union. Can the Minister update us on what her department is doing to prevent that wiping out of the UK steel industry that is about to happen, given our third country status?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The steel industry is incredibly important to the Government. As noble Lords know, the Government have taken action in respect of British Steel, and, as I outlined earlier, in respect of energy costs for the industry. My department has been engaging in discussions with EU counterparts on this to ensure that we properly understand what is going on. We will always take action to protect our industry.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, if no one else has another question, I will ask a very quick one. The Minister referred to £250 billion-worth of inward investment and 450,000 jobs that will be created. I do not expect her to have this information to hand, but would she be willing to commit to write to noble Lords who have participated in this debate with a list of the amounts dedicated, by whom, where and when, et cetera, particularly in reference to jobs? That is because, as we know, since the Government have taken power, 177,000 jobs have been lost.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Yes, I am quite happy to write as a follow-up. I think I said £250 billion, and I originally meant to say 45,000 jobs. I apologise; that was my error—but I can follow up on that point.
Lord Fox (LD)
Just to prolong the agony for slightly longer, when the Minister was answering the noble Lord’s question on oil and gas, she came up with a long list of very creditable investments and changes that are going on. When I was asking my question, I referred to the relative speed of creating jobs versus losing them. Does she accept that it is much easier and quicker to lose jobs than to create them? It is very important that this creative process keeps pace with the destruction process, otherwise we will lose even more skills than we are already.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
It is indeed very important that we continue to create jobs in highly productive, well-paid sectors, and that we provide the skills and training to a broad base of young and older people to take advantage of that. Whether that is through large, single-site companies or through the plethora of SMEs that can create jobs, it is important that we continue to focus on the productivity of our economy, so I agree with that point.