Lords Chamber

Wednesday 25th June 2025

(began 5 hours, 45 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Removal of VAT exemption for independent schools
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Question, First Oral Question, Lord First Oral Question, Lord Black of Brentwood on behalf of Lord Lexden.
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
None Portrait Oral questions: Decanting the Palace of Westminster and its Restoration and Renewal programme.
-

Second Oral Question.
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:40
None Portrait Oral questions: Risks to GP services and NHS costs presented by the takeover of Assura’s surgeries by private equity providers
-

underpins the kind of services we want to see. Certainly I agree that individual cases must be seen as individual cases.
15:40
15:40
15:40
Baroness Altmann Portrait Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
-
dialogue with assurer, and prospective purchasers, and we will keep monitoring proceedings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for her answer. Following care home read falling into foreign hands, the falling into foreign hands, the board were happy to sell out to KKR risking an uncertain future for GP surgeries serving millions of people rather than ensuring continued UK ownership to support NHS current and ownership to support NHS current and future infrastructure. The dangers of allowing overseas takeovers and private equity buyouts are written in the wreckage of our care home sector.

So I have two questions. What power does the government have What power does the government have two prevent further erosion of critical UK infrastructure? And critical UK infrastructure? And secondly, does His Majesty's Government recognise the damage Government recognise the damage caused by the FCA to so many real estate investment trusts like this, and other investment trusts, which and other investment trusts, which own and manage critical UK infrastructure. The exaggerated so- infrastructure. The exaggerated so- called investor costs has led to unwarranted undervaluation.

And unwarranted undervaluation. And therefore, foreign bidders coming in and taking the opportunity to snap and taking the opportunity to snap up our future infrastructure for short-term gain, denying those opportunities to pension funds who are the ideal long-term investors for such companies.
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:52
15:52
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill - second reading
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The
15:52
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
contents have it. Second reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Lord Khan of Burnley. Bill, Lord Khan of Burnley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move I would like to extend my thanks to the many like to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords with whom myself and my noble friend Baroness Taylor have a ready spoken to about this bill. I know that there is consensus in this know that there is consensus in this House that the country should and could be better served. It is served could be better served. It is served by more decent housing, they better faster process for agreeing what infrastructure is needed to support infrastructure is needed to support the communities we build.

Better infrastructure to have the country infrastructure to have the country meet its climate targets, a better deal for nature which we know the deal for nature which we know the public deeply cares about. My Lords, Britain deserves better than this status quo and it is for that reason status quo and it is for that reason that we are brought forward this bill. We have delivered significant changes to our planning system in a revised progrowth National Planning revised progrowth National Planning Policy Framework and the Office for Budget Responsibility have forecast Budget Responsibility have forecast these changes will increase the level of our real GDP by 0.2% by level of our real GDP by 0.2% by 2029/30.

The equivalent of £6.8 2029/30. The equivalent of £6.8 billion in today's prices. We are creating a system not only fit to address our present challenges but agile enough to respond to our agile enough to respond to our future needs. For too long, the approach was a mismatched tapestry of ill fitting short-term list reforms tinkered around the edges rather than resolving our problems. In the process, laser bureaucracy and goldplating have been created rather than genuine improvements. This House should not mistake the government ambitions or the speed at which this bill has been taken forward for a lack of careful consideration.

The situation is a start. These issues merit prioritising. The time it takes to secure planning permission for major infrastructure products has doubled in the last decade to more than four years. Homebuilding has also fallen from already insufficient levels. There are simply not enough homes and the number of new homes is estimated to drop to around 200,000 this year. This would be the lowest year on additional dwellings in England in 2015 /16. The bill would England in 2015 /16.

The bill would send a song away to building safe and decent Homes England and each planning decisions in 150 major economic infrastructure rejects in this ornament. The bill will further support the government clean power 2030 target in enabling essential projects to be built as quickly as possible. As a key component of our Plan for Change, this ambitious package will unblock the planning system to secure the infrastructure system to secure the infrastructure this country needs. Upgrading the country was not critical in the structure is essential to boosting economic growth and improving the quality of life that written has to offer.

That's why this bill introduces a range of reforms to the For Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, to create a faster and more certain system. These changes have been informed from feedback from developers, planning and experts, and local authorities. Reforms brought forward by the bill include ensuring that national policy statements which are the cornerstone of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project regime are kept up-to-date, powers will allow for projects to be directed out of the system where they can be said is served -- better served.

We are replacing overly restrictive statutory connotation requirements that encourage risk aversion and goldplating with guidance to encourage the developer of high quality applications through meaningful engagement. The government still expects that of element proposals are fully escaped before submission to the Planning Inspectorate. These measures will tackle the huge volume of inaccessible paperwork that slows the process without adding value to communities. This could reduce consenting times by up to 12 months and pave the way for new roads, railways and windfarms to bolster the country's connectivity and energy security.

Building recommendations proposed by Lord Banner, the paper permission stage for judicial reviews on national policy statements and developing consent orders has been removed, as has the right of appeal when cases are deemed totally without merit. Taken together, these changes will address the biggest barriers to delivery they are targeted specifically at fixing elements of the system that slow down applications, decisions and ultimately development. On top of these overall changes to the regime, the bill will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for transport infrastructure projects.

Boosting transport connectivity will support economic growth across the country, tackling congestion and keep Britain moving. Motorsport forward in this bill will streamline both the Highways Act and the Transport and Works Act process to ensure it is proportionate, fit for purpose and support the effective and timely delivery of transport projects. Additionally, the bill will introduce a number of changes to speed up the delivery of our energy infrastructure. The bill supports vital reforms to the electricity network's connections process. The current first come first served connections to prevents viable protects being able to connect to the grid ahead of slower moving ones.

The bill will ensure projects allowing the government Clean Power 2030 Action Plan are Clean Power 2030 Action Plan are prioritised. This move to a first ready, first connected approach will avoid delays in connecting viable and needed projects to the power grid. These reforms enable strategically important energy projects needed for clean power to be prioritised for great connection. Reforms to the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland will also make the system more efficient and look to reduce overall consenting timescales. These have been developed jointly with the Scottish government.

The bill enables the launch of a discount scheme for certain communities who live nearby new or significantly upgraded infrastructure. And the introduction of a cap scheme for long-duration energy storage will support investment in this area and help to decarbonise the electricity system. A cheaper and more efficient energy system is a key driver of growth. Milos, telling the part of the bill, this will make further changes to streamline decision- making in the planning system to ensure the system operates as effectively and efficiently as possible.

A national scheme of delegation will be introduced to set out which types of applications should be determined by officers and which by planning committees. The government had published a technical consultation in which we propose splitting planning applications into duties, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert offices and at the same time, ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the more significant proposals for housing and commercial elements. This change will not undermine the important role that planning committees play in providing local oversight on planning decisions.

Instead it will ensure that planning committees play Rollins good nursing development of the best and possible and without delay. In fact 96% of planning decisions are already made by officers, introducing a national Great assist consistency of decision-making shown planning committees have the time to deal with the more significant or contentious applications. Some in the other place have made the argument that this measure represents an attack on local democracy. Framing the bill as an attempt to diminish community voices. I disagree. This reform will improve the effectiveness of local democratic oversight, no more grandstanding debates about the merits of offence.

The committee focus will be on those development proposals that matter most to local communities. The changes combined with further reforms to allow the local planning authorities and what organisations to have the resources they need to deliver change for communities across the country. We cannot meet this country's needs without planning for growth on a larger and local scale. The bill will enable the government to introduce a system of strategic planning across England, areas will be required to produce special developers charges, closely modelling the system which has been in place in London for 20 years.

This will help to address special issues such as meeting housing needs, structure and improving climate is a nature of by taking a regional view of how growth needs It will also enable efficient plans for site allocations set out in the SDS. Turning to partly of the bill, I think we can all agree on the important role sustained economic growth plays in ensuring the prosperity of our country. However, we are clear that nature cannot be an afterthought and must be placed at the heart of our reforms.

The nature restoration fund will accelerate building of homes and infrastructure while unlocking the positive impact development can have in driving recovery of protected sites and species. This removes -- moves from a system that offsets to one that actively supports recovery of affected sites and species. The most strategic approach to nature recovery brought forward by the spill will be done by the creation of environmental delivery plans. EDP is made by the Secretary of State then delivered by Natural England will set out a package of consideration measures specific to addressing climate impact and to secure a environmental uplift.

Rather than limited to the impact of a single investment, it will pool resources and conservation measures to scale the positive outcome for the environment. At the same time developers will benefit from a streamlined process and simple user experience for development in England and up to 12 nautical miles into its territorial waters. The government constructed the legislation to include a range of safeguards to ensure the new system delivers on the ambition to go further for nature. An EDP can only be put in place when the Secretary of State is satisfied the conservation matters are likely to outweigh the negative effects of development.

This will ensure our reforms will not reduce existing levels of environmental protection, with this new approach delivering more for nature not less. It's for this reason the government is confident the nature restoration fund is a progressive intervention, as supported in this section 20 statement that supports this bill. That's not to say the government is not listening to views of stakeholders who have indicated areas where the government may wish to strengthen the bill. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage and I take the views of the Office for Environmental Protection seriously, and continue to engage with them and environmental NGOs.

We look forward to hearing and engaging with views of noble Lords today and throughout the Bill's passage. The NRF is not the only measure in the bill that will make a meaningful difference in our ongoing battle to support nature and address the issue of climate change. Measures in the bill to prioritise network connections are an example of this. We can't afford to delay the benefit this bill would have to be environment as a whole. It will also strengthen cooperation is to make it easier for central and local government to deliver at large-scale new communities.

The bill makes a clear and robust legislative framework for cooperation. Developing cooperations are important for delivering large- scale and complex regeneration projects, ensuring we have up-to- date and clear legislation on their remit duties and powers will allow development corporations to unlock more housing across the country, for sustained economic growth. Finally, turning to reforms for the compulsory purchase process. The government is keen for authorities to make greater use of their compulsory purchase powers to support the delivery of housing, growth and regeneration of their areas.

Measures introduced in this bill will enable more effective lack assembly -- land assembly that will speed up delivery. The bill will ensure the process for acquiring land is more efficient. It will reduce the administrative costs of making a CPO and streamlined the CPO process, including by allowing notices to be served electronically. The legislation will also expand the power to remove value when a land is acquired by the town Council or parish council, when relevant, with supervision of affordable housing.

Landowners should not receive excessive compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. These changes have been brought forward to make the system more efficient and fairer. The government is clear there must always be a compelling case in the public interest for the use of a CPO. It's in our national interest to make the planning system better. Because sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people.

In making these changes we can tackle some of the biggest issues facing the country today. I believe the measures and in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are sufficiently robust and crucially balanced to meet these challenges head on. I know the subjects debated today are matters dear to many across the House, I have no doubt that in the weeks and months ahead members will approach this bill with the rigour and scrutiny that embodies the very best this House offers. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read a second time. My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as vice president of the Local Government Association. From these benches, we
16:06
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Association. From these benches, we support many of the Bill's principles and ambitions. Several of which build on work we lead in government, during a period of record housebuilding. While not perfect, the levelling-up and regeneration act is a step forward streamlining the planning system and focusing on local priorities. As a Minister I recognised the urgent need for more homes, and I remain just as committed today to driving practical action to meet that need. In 2019, the Conservative party committed to delivering one million additional homes over the Parliament.

In 2024, before the general election, we delivered on that commitment. The Labour Party has now committed to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament, and it is essential they deliver on that manifesto commitment. As the bill progresses through this house we will weigh serious concerns, the removal of councillors voting rights on individual applications sharply increased housing targets in rural areas without sufficient protection for villagers. The shift to strategic plans and the questions over deliverability of the 1.5 of the 1.5 million homes.

That 1.5 million homes figure appears to be little more than the arbitrary aspiration of the Deputy Prime Minister. Announcing the other place without a roadmap, without detailed plans, and ultimately without a credible delivery mechanism. The target lacks the very foundations required to make it achievable. There are quite rightly widespread questions about its deliverability. Particularly in light of the February SNP global UK construction purchasing managers index. Which reports one of the sharpest monthly declines in housebuilding and construction on record.

Furthermore, the joint report from saddles, the Home builders Federation, and the National Housing Federation, estimated that the Secretary of State is likely to fall short of their target buyers many as 500,000 homes. Doubts about deliverability were only compounded by the recent spending review. The Chancellor's announcement was heavily loaded with limited short-term impact, most of which comes after 2030. With meaningful increases not projected until 2035/36. The headline figure spread over a decade goes beyond this Parliament, and will have two withstand numerous fiscal events from a government so often keen to change their mind.

There is as yet no formal multi-year budget commitment, it is a pledge not a statutory allocation. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, the £39 billion figure is only meaningful if future spending reviews confirm it. Even if the workable aspects of the bill are able to deliver more homes, the government must indicate how this funding will be delivering their pledge in this Parliament. This bill also impacts on our natural environment and rural communities. Later in this debate Lord Roborough will outline why from these benches we would review part three of the bill as a particular cause for concern.

The proposed nature restoration levy may to some sitting in an office in Whitehall seem like a welcome implication of the environmental conditions attached to the planning system. But in reality this appears to water down existing protections. And that is not a solution. The Official Opposition wants to see the right homes in the right place, without weakening our position on nature restoration and appropriate environmental protections. There are important questions the government must answer. What safeguards will ensure the levy is proportionate to the environmental impact? And does not simply become another tax or barrier to development.

What is the expected timeline for implementing the environmental delivery plans? And has the government factored in potential delays, including the possibility of judicial reviews? We look forward to the Minister's reflections on these points, and our assessment is that it could take some years Royal Assent before the environmental delivery plans begin to make a real world impact. If the government believes otherwise we would welcome reassurances on this. On outcomes, concerns persist. The chartered in of ecology and environmental management has warned that this system risks the immediate loss of natural capital.

And with the only benefits realised decades later. So we hope the government can provide greater confidence this approach will deliver meaningful and timely results for the environment. If the government are now concerned with the issue of neutrality, perhaps I might draw their attention to the amendments we put forward during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Regrettably, the government, then in opposition, chose to vote them down. Thereby defeating the proposition. I would of course be more than happy to assist the noble Baroness the Minister and the noble Lord the Minister by returning these amendments to the attention of the House, in the hope that even at this stage the government might reconsider their position.

Additionally, this bill touches on the crucial area of energy. My noble Lord offered will speak with authority on this subject later in the debate, however I will briefly set out how we see it as so vital. The UK continues to face some of the highest electricity costs in the world. An issue that poses a serious barrier to growth. We therefore welcome commitments to energy infrastructure and support any measures that aim to reduce energy costs, but this must go hand-in-hand with proper community consultation.

Particularly regarding the installation of overhead cables and new pylons. Finally, we must ensure that we are developing a diverse and resilient energy mix, one that provides stability and equips us to meet the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world. My Lords, I now turn to the issue of planning. The noble Lord the Minister is correct that we are deeply concerned about the proposed national scheme of delegation, which would remove councillors ability to vote on individual planning applications. Is the Minister not concerned about the systematic removal of a layer upon layer of democratic oversight? Democratic accountability matters, especially when it comes to housebuilding.

Local consent, legitimacy and trust are essential to delivering not just are essential to delivering not just more houses, but the right houses. When the local communities and their elected representatives have a meaningful role in the planning process housebuilding is seen as something done with people, not done to them. Strip that away and you risk generating opposition, misdirecting development, and ultimately building fewer homes. We want the right homes in the right places, and the government needs to bring communities with them if they are going to deliver that.

When communities are engaged and can see the shape and benefit of new housing, whether through affordable homes, infrastructure improvements or environmental safeguards, public support increases and delivery becomes more achievable. We are particularly concerned that the proposed model of strategic planning, and it could be used -- it is being used to shift urban housing need into our rural areas. This is especially troubling in the light of the disproportionally high increases in housing targets assigned to those The Secretary of State has raised the national target.

Residents might reasonably expect that their local targets have increased by similar amount. But my Lords, that's far from the case. According to House of Commons Library, a major urban conurbations, housing targets have risen by never just 17%. In predominantly rural areas, they have increased by 150%. To illustrate, London's target is down 12%, Newcastle down 15%, Birmingham down 38%, and Coventry is down 55%. Meanwhile, Wyre Forest and new Forest have seen their targets Some targets have increased by more than 500%.

This is neither fair nor sustainable. It erodes local trust and places significant pressures on our rural, infrastructure and landscapes. Worse still it undermines the very reason we need more homes in the first place. Housing costs in major towns and cities act as a major barrier to interregional mobility. For low income houses, households and renters, housing affordability creates a form of price locked in preventing them from accessing areas with greater employment opportunities. If we are serious about boosting growth and supporting opportunity, we need the right homes in the right places.

We need homes where opportunities are, we need local representation to be involved in the process of building those homes. We therefore urge the government to rethink this approach and to restore a meaningful role for democratic decision-making in the planning system. From these ventures, we warmly welcome the government puts two emphasis on local plans. I plan system is the right approach. -- A plan led system. We recognise the effort to ensure that communities have a stronger voice in developing, and shaping development.

We do, however, see opportunities to build on this. In particular, we would like to explore more ambitious support for small builders and self builders. An important part of a diverse and resilient housing sector. Current 10% site allocation for such developments is a positive step but we support the Federation of Master Builders suggestion that this could be increased to 20%. We also welcome consideration of an expanded role for Homes England in supporting micro-builders who often face particular barriers to entry.

Turning briefly to the issue of grey belt, while we appreciate that the intention to make better use of underused land concerns remain about how these changes may impact the wider countryside and particularly village identity. Although this is not directly part of the bill it clearly interacts with the bill and we hope the ministers will continue to reflect on the balance between flexibility and long-standing protection of rural communities. There is also a risk of unintended urban sprawl.

This would be a significant pressure on our local infrastructure and local services. We should prioritise the proper use of our existing urban centres. Bringing empty properties back into use and supporting densification where appropriate to make the most of the space we already have. My Lords, our aim in engaging with this bill is not to obstruct its objectives but to contribute constructively to its success. We will bring forward amendments that are designed to strengthen the bill's ability to deliver well- designed, affordable, particularly for those on lower incomes and first-time buyers, while ensuring that local forces, rural character and environmental safeguards remain respected -- local voices.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we welcome this aim of getting Britain building and
16:20
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
getting Britain building and kickstarting our economic growth delivering much-needed housing and critical infrastructure. We also recognise the urgent need to fundamentally reform and improve our planning systems. We must build more homes, more affordable, and infrastructure, to meet the challenges of our time, from improving transport systems to addressing climate change. The current systems are clearly not working. Getting to clean power loan by 2030 will require a huge investment in renewable energy and the grid, our electricity consumption is due to more than double by 2050.

We welcome the reforms to the grid connections system. We are at the stage of the energy transition where we need to build a lot of stuff. We need to be able to take our communities with us in order to get that done. While the intention to improve the systems in processes is welcome, some of the solutions proposed are misguided and concerning. This government has chosen neither bats nor crested newts because they want growth. These plans are much more done to than done with, when it comes to our local communities.

The government suggests that existing environmental protection's are a significant barrier to developments and that these plans will provide a win-win for both nature and the economy and a more strategic approach. Nature appears to me to have little voice and little value within these proposals. Our planning systems need to be aligned with and support our climate and nature goals. If this bill were enacted, our nature and biodiversity would in my opinion be degraded and the real reforms and funding that our planning system desperately needs would be missed.

My argument based on the government fourth own evidence. The impact assessment admits that there is very little data on how environmental obligations affect element. Official analysis provides no data to support the argument that environmental legislation is held up. My Lords, removing these protections would not help. Delays are more often rooted in lengthy preplanning application stages, more processes, lack of data, lack of data sharing, outdated national policy statements, and in some cases yet to be delivered policies like land-use frameworks and various special plans.

An additional local authorities are permanently understaffed, underfunded and unable to cope. We can add to this list of skills shortages, supply chain issues and market confidence. More than one point million homes in England, as we already had, have planning permission. 95% of local planning applications are approved. All too often developers do not build, and the systems simply failed to ensure delivery. The bill misses an important opportunity to better hold large household builders to account and continues a developer led approach.

The environmental delivery plans, EPA's, and the Nature Restoration Fund proposals are an alarming step backwards for nature protection. The bill proposes that developers can pay into a Nature Restoration Fund instead of fulfilling existing legal operations to protect wildlife and habitats. This bypasses a fundamental mitigation hierarchy. The principle that impact should first be avoided, then mitigated, and only as a last resort compensated for. There is no requirement for developers to even attempt to avoid harm before sorting to pain the offset fee.

This is a profound weakening of our environmental law. Personally I do not much like the idea that nature can be transplanted, and transplanted in this way for a fee. It treats nature to begin to a problem as if it were simply house removals. Nature cannot simply be moved around to suit developers needs. For irreplaceable habitats, needs. For irreplaceable habitats, All sites with major protections should be removed from these provisions. Many of these habitats are simply impossible to recreate and move elsewhere.

The abundance of 753 terrestrial and freshwater species has on average fallen by 19% across the UK since 1970. We do not expect to be able to meet our biodiversity targets with these, how do we expect to meet the targets with these proposals? Proposals to give these unique ecosystems stronger productions were rejected in the other place and government amendments never arrived. The government even rejected a cross- party amendment to allow Swift bricks in new homes. What hope is there for nature if adding a £36 Swift brick is so easily rejected? We must work with nature bring into our development and promote access doing so provides rewards for our quality-of-life and improves our health.

We must restore and work with nature to help educate the impacts of climate change. Instead, the bill's overall improvement test states that conservation versions must only be likely to sufficient to outweigh negative impacts. This introduces uncertainty, and breathability and subjectivity, falling far short of the rigourous scientific certainty required by our existing environmental laws. We believe this must be strengthened and benefits must significantly outweigh any harm. The office of environmental protection has also expressed significant concerns about the bill, as drafted saying it would reduce the level of environment protection.

They describe provisions as a regression, particularly for habitat species. Concerns also persist regarding resources and capacity for nature England, to administer the substantially new responsible as he. And these are going to be a complex system the government is putting in place. We are calling for independent oversight to ensure funds are spent effectively and transparently. To conclude, we must properly source our planning authorities, 25% of all planners have been lost in the last seven years. While the government allows local authorities to set their own fees, these fees must be ring fenced to make sure the money and the skills are available to ensure a sufficient local planning system.

We must strengthen our local democracy accountability and public trust. The approach in this bill risks relating communities and diminishing the crucial role of our elective councils. I worry this could have a negative impact on the rollout of all the stuff we need to build to get to net zero. We must ensure meaningful engagement and good communications and that communities have a voice in and benefit from energy transition itself? We will work with government to improved this bill but the government may well be surprised by the level of cross-party consensus, that has already established itself on all sides.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as the Vice President of the Town and Country
16:28
Lord Best Portrait Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
President of the Town and Country Planning Act Association of Local Government Association, an honorary member of the Royal town planning Institute and my interest is in the bill is vitally important mission to get the homes and infrastructure built for this country but it needs so badly. Have a very real housing crisis with increasing numbers of families placed in temporary accommodation and huge public expense, simply because there are not enough homes to go around. This objective will require proper resourcing and planning departments and I think the part two of the bill does recognise this necessity.

For me, key question hanging over the ambition to build 1.5 1.5 million more and Better Homes is, who will the nation entrust to get this job done? For many years, the answer for most housebuilding has been, we will let the volume housebuilders acquire the sites, come up with the plans, design and build the homes, and make their profits while we try to allocate a modest proportion of their output for affordable. This reliance on the large housebuilders has not produced the quantity or quality of homes we need.

It has seen development of expenses of greenfield land in preference to small sites and brownfield schemes that can regenerate whole neighbourhoods. It has put SME builders out of business down from building 40% of new homes to just 10% since 2000. It has not created apprenticeships and trained workforce. There has been little innovation or use of modern methods of construction. It's led to so- called fleecehold sales to homebuyers, to uniform soulless design, and with little attempt to provide the green spaces and community facilities that are the making of any place.

And the housebuilders have worked at a pace that suits themselves, a buildout rate that ensures no reduction in Housebuilders can reply they are making profit holding businesses with shareholders to satisfy and they can't be expected to work for the public benefit or common good. But surely now is the time for a model that is driven by what is best for the place in question. This leads us to the really positive part for this bill, that promotes new development corporations.

This is the model that will be used for the eagerly awaited new generation of new towns, but which can operate everywhere else. Arm's-length to local authorities, but publicly accountable. Sometimes created by mayoral and other combined county authorities. Development corporations acquire sites ahead of planning consent, and capture the increase in land value. If necessary, using the CPO powers, much improved by part five of this bill. Development corporations commission the necessary master plans and parcel out sites to a Ranger providers.

To housebuilders large and small, but also housing associations for social housing, to providers of homes for later living, student accommodation, self build and custom housebuilding, as well as for all the vital social infrastructure. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill enables the use of this development Corporation model for any major development, introducing an alternative to the failed business model of the oligopoly of volume housebuilders. Here is the breakthrough that the bill could achieve. So in commending part four of the bill could I ask the noble Baroness the Minister whether the necessary backup, governance, finance, is being prepared by the Ministry for housing develop mentoring communities for many new development corporations, for urban extensions, major regeneration projects, a desirable new developments that will contrast with the arrangements that have let

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more. It's always a great privilege to follow the noble Lord Best, whose wisdom on housing is quite
16:33
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
wisdom on housing is quite unparalleled. I also draw attention to my own interest in social housing as set out in the register. And further that there are a number of provisions in this bill that might impact on the Church Commissioners for England, they pay for the house I live in. I welcome this bill, we desperately need a rapid expansion of building of social homes. Much of the measures here included can be part of the architecture, if we are going to underpin a mixed economy for housing, one that can live up to the Archbishop's commission on housing values, for homes that are safe and sustainable.

I welcome efforts to tackle the long-standing issue of home value, the rapid inflation busting rise in the value of land with planning permission compounded now over several decades, convinces me the position we have inherited, whilst it may have been suitable for half a century ago, is now frankly untenable and immoral. However, we do need to tackle this carefully. I will listen carefully to debate on this matter in this House. In Greater Manchester creating a plan over several authorities has been taxing, that's a euphemism for impossible.

I hope this bill will be able to break some of those logjams. In practice this is often less due to particle literal differences, with councillors that attend to localised lobby groups. I believe they have now more than proved their worth, especially when we need a more strategic view. I hope we can give them the powers they need. I suspect local councillors who understand the need for local housing infrastructure would be deeply relieved to not always be the ones that blame for agreeing developments in their wards.

Two other aspects of the bill, several of my right reverend friends will be following the rural provisions with interest. We believe this bill provides an important opportunity to protect chalk streams. These are both globally rare and ecologically significant. Lord Bishop of Hereford has drawn attention to how multigenerational farming families struggle under current legislation to build tied accommodation so the next generation can remain on the farm. We do need to keep family farms running, not least so elderly farmers can retire, I know too many who are continuing when they really shouldn't, but so we don't lose the skills in farming that are often skills in farming that are often passed down generations.

He will be supporting other amendments. The notion of offsetting the nature of development on a particular site by other environmental measures elsewhere I think is one that is established in other legislation. So in extending it it does have my support, but I believe the case being made by the Wildlife and Countryside Link that measures to offset harms should be modelled as close as possible to the site of impact should be taken seriously. Where possible they should be a direct link between new infrastructure and the development of new ecosystems.

That way the of new ecosystems. That way the public see the benefits in their own communities. I accept that isn't always possible, and it mustn't become a means of blocking or delaying every major development. But offsetting at a considerable distance should be rare and exceptional. I have long championed the needs of the Gypsy Roma and Traveller communities, they have been part of the backbone of rural Britain for many generations. But increasingly we know they are pushed to the margins. I urged that we take the opportunity in this bill to ensure Gypsy and Traveller accommodations are included and specifically referenced with requirements to spatial strategies.

The definition of social housing could helpfully be amended, to include local gypsy and traveller sites, including the Housing Act of 2004, section 1, to include all the essential parts of the home of a Gypsy Traveller site. It may not be obvious given the lack of my reverend friends in their places, but there is considerable interest in this bill on our bench. It happens to be one of the busiest weeks of our year, several hundred new deacons will be coming in this weekend.

Losing my sister has worked wonders to get me here. -- Lucy my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sister. I welcome the bill. I very much welcome the bill which I see as an essential which I see as an essential foundation to building new homes and critical infrastructure. I cannot afford -- we cannot afford the current system, which almost seems designed to stop growth. And
16:38
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
designed to stop growth. And actually makes it so expensive and damaging to our economy and basic living standards. My main interest in the bill is in part one, which will help speed up the building of new energy infrastructure. Which I see as vital to achieving clean power by 2030. Baroness Scott in her remarks says she has reported much of what's in the bill including in relation to energy. I notice she made no mention of clean power and net zero, and of course the party opposite is in full retreat despite the fact it was Mrs Thatcher who went to the UN in November 1989 and spoke about mankind and his activities, which are changing the environment and the planet in damaging and dangerous ways.

It was Mrs May as Prime Minister who legislated for net zero by 2050, but the party opposite is now in full retreat. They have turned their back on planet change. They have turned their back on net zero. And they developed an unfathomable passion for fossil fuels, despite the fact that the volatile fossil fuel market is one of the major causes of our high energy prices. So clean power by 2030 requires a huge upgrading of the country's major energy infrastructure. And that I think we are agreed.

The commons Environmental Audit Committee concluded in 2024 that many planned renewable energy projects were hampered by persistent problems accessing electricity grid, including slow connections, limited capacity of local planning authorities, and inappropriate planning regulations. Currently, companies are waiting after 15 years -- up to 15 years to be connected to the grid. This is leaving promising developments gridlocked. Then national energy operator was tasked by government to increase energy infrastructure by 2030, at over twice the pace it was being delivered the previous decade.

That's why the bill's provisions are so welcome. Particularly the removal of the burdens from the statutory Tory requirement to consult as part of the stage of the applications. The grids connection key reforms to move from first come first serve to a first connected and ready approach. The new funding mechanism for statutory consultees that will hopefully address the lack of capacity and resources, and a proposed bill discount scheme for people living close to energy infrastructure. Part three is relevant to infrastructure growth.

I would say to Lord Russell, I fully accept it would be perverse that if net zero were achieved at the expense of our nature, farmland and general environment. But I would also say to him that the bill as it currently stands gives a huge amount of responsibility to Natural England and other statutory bodies, who have shown no interest in considering the benefits of development. Have seen a hollowing out of scientific expertise over the years of austerity, and I have no experience delivering complexity infrastructure strategies.

Environmental development delivery plans to deliver strategic compensation in relation to the habitats regime, I can see it working for different -- for a given area where you may have different housing developers. But I'm worried as to the extent it will work for major infrastructure development. As Kathryn Howard, head of planning at Herbert Smith free Hill cream is written, there is a need to twin the process by also going through the traditional habitat regime. Because and EDP was not in place at the time for the consent application.

This is going to be hopeless for developers. I believe the Secretary of State needs to have a power in the event of this being stuck in this way. With that important caveat, let me say I welcome the bill. I see it as a great foundation for growth. But I do hope the government will be willing to listen to some of the issues for major developers on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

three. The whole house will miss the contributions from Lord Hunt at the Dispatch Box, we welcome the clarity Dispatch Box, we welcome the clarity of his contributions and the backbenches will be reinforced by backbenches will be reinforced by his prevalence now he is free to say what he thinks. Here we go with what he thinks. Here we go with another planning role. I start with another planning role. I start with a quote, conflict is not uncommon with the public and private sectors who wish to change the use of land.

The planning system provides a The planning system provides a framework for resolving these inevitable frameworks -- conflicts. It enhances the credibility. That It enhances the credibility. That was myself on March 12, 1991. Introducing as planning Minister in
16:43
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
the other place planning and Compensation Bill. My imprint on the planning system did not last long. We then had the planning and compulsory purchase act 2002, the planning act 2008, the Localism Act 2011, the Housing and Planning Act 2016, and the levelling-up and act 2023 which was another planning bill. And now Villas. The 1947 planning act lasted until the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Since then we keep on digging up their foundations without apparently making the structure any more durable.

So I wish the Ministers well. In the time available I want to make one point. The success of the bill will depend on the efficiency of local government departments responding to the challenge in the bill. On February 5, the government told all councils into tier areas and small neighbouring unitary is to produce plans by last March to go unitary. Professionals in planning departments are probably more affected by -- than anyone else, because the plans will have to change. They will understandably be worried about their own futures and the organisations, as they apply for jobs in the new structures or accept redundancy.

The bills success depends on up-to-date plans to deliver certainty and avoid appeals. Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the use of each area and a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic and social and environmental priorities. As of March 2024, only 1/3 of local authorities had adopted a plan in the last five years. And 291 had plans more than five years old. So as they attempt to address the backlog that will still be necessary until the bill comes about.

They will also have to start all over again producing a plan for the new unitary authority. The government has stated that, "Where reorganisation occurs, new unitary authorities are eclectic to promptly prepare a local plan covering the entire area". This all came on top of the December 2024 devolution White Paper. All of England is to be part of one of three new categories of local authority, another reorganisation. Foundation strategic authorities, mayoral strategic authorities, established mayoral authorities, established mayoral The planners have to produce under the bill special development, providing strategies for the use of land in the area.

At the moment there are only three. In a masterly understatement government said, we are aware that areas undergoing local government reorganisation and devolution will experience a transition period. Where responsibility for special development strategy might transfer between authorities. At the same time, the government wants to reduce all the current delays in processing planning applications so we can get on with the infrastructure and building the 1.5 degrees homes we need. If planning departments were fully staffed with the necessary skills they might rise to this challenge.

But they are not. The Local Government Association workforce survey found that 60% of councils have difficulties recruiting planning facilities. 45% have difficulties retaining planning officers, many attempting high salaries elsewhere. Two thirds of councils rely on agency staff to address capacity issues. " We continue to have concerns about the chronic and resourcing of our planning system. It is a simple to long-term resourcing and strategy be published alongside the bill ". It is not. The stocks the government has taken to address it for short of what is needed and risk undermining the purpose of the bill.

I remember a discussion when I was a Treasury minister, with a senior economist Treasury. When I suggested new policy that had been tried New Zealand, he said it may work in practice but it doesn't work in theory. The risk of the bill is exactly the opposite. It may work in theory but it will not work in practice and is planning departments practice and is planning departments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are resourced. -- Unless. War planning and infrastructure may not get everyone in the House
16:48
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
may not get everyone in the House excited is fundamental to everything we do in this country and we need to get it right for our communities and to start delivering across the country. Chapter 3 of part one of this bill regarding transport infrastructure has not had the focus it deserves and we recognise the urgent need to modernise and expand our network from upgrades to bus routes, major projects must be delivered efficiently. However, we must not move to a position where we bulldoze through projects with no consideration for local communities and their needs, and to environmental concerns.

It is getting that balance right. If we travel to the continent we experience the fantastic High Speed 2 are networks that have run at pace. In 1981, France became the first nation in Europe to implement a high-speed rail link from Paris to Lyon, 450 km long, and since then, the network has grown with over 2,800 km. Spain started constructing its high-speed rail network in 1992, 30 years later they have roughly 4,000 km of high-speed rail.

Then we look at the UK. High Speed 1 opened in 2007 from London to the Channel Tunnel, a mere 108 commenters. And of course High Speed 2 which we discussed last week. One I welcome understand the government ambition to streamline infrastructure delivery, you must ensure that the bill does not sacrifice local accountability, local engagement, local heritage or environmental integrity, in the name of speed or indeed progress. We can learn from our European neighbours about how best to deliver such projects at a spot whilst bringing communities with us.

I welcome some of the progress in this bill in the area of EV charging. It's a huge issue as we clean up our transport network and for too long there have been barriers. Clause 47 relates to public and its crucial legislation effectively addresses this issue and is future proof to support the continued growth of electric vehicle adoption. My colleague Helen Maguire MP championed amendments to this bill the other house that would have enabled cross pavement charging solutions such as covered cable gullies, by extending the permitted and rights of on street charging setups.

The amendments would have broadened to clarify permitted the rights to facilitate installation of EV charging infrastructure. These changes are essential if we are to support the 40% of households without offstreet parking and ensure in fits of EV adoption are shared fairly. The current bureaucratic process which includes street works licence and planning permission just feels two. I hope the Minister will look favourably on similar amendments were tabled in this House. Also do need to look at how we can establish charging infrastructure for HGVs and other supply vehicles which will be vital for net zero.

Too often, companies are finding it difficult to secure the necessary permission, let alone the grid access for such important infrastructure. But we must also think creatively. About how we power this transition. One of the most underutilised opportunities lies in our existing transport infrastructure. Across the country, vast expanses of roof space suit idle, exposed to sunlight, installing solar panels on car parks, bus garages and railway stations could generate clean and, produce good pressure and power local EV charges directly. France has already mandated solar panels on large car parks and we are playing catch up with the recent government announcement but I hope the government will consider provisions in this bill to require solar installations on all suitable transport infrastructure.

It's a simple feasible step towards a greener future and we have some good examples. Here in the capital, Blackfriars and Denmark Hill stations. Let us use this bill, not to build faster but to build better, build smarter, and build fairer for a transport network that is clean,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

connected and accessible to all. I draw attention to my registered interest as chair of Cambridgeshire development Forum and the development Forum and the Oxfordshire development Forum. I should emphasise that my views on these issues are entirely my own. We these issues are entirely my own. We
16:53
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
these issues are entirely my own. We of course, a number of us our taken forward many of these issues we discussed during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I thought the point about the resulting of planning authorities was really important and something the government could do straightaway the government could do straightaway outside this bill is to enable the retention of planning new planning offices, because in the lack of that I think it's going to be very difficult for local planning authorities.

In the time available I want to focus on one thing, as we discuss many issues in this bill hope we can understand more about what it is the government is proposing to use from Levelling Up and Regeneration Act and what they are proposing not to use. So... And how they will be used. So the national development management policies are potentially extremely important in enabling local authorities to produce plans more quickly and efficiently, I hope that those local authorities that are going into the new planning process should have early access to empty MPs in order to be able to limit the extent to which they have to undertake unnecessary consultation.

It also links to the debate we will have about a national scheme of delegation. I have to say a thought that the government's technical proposal actually insofar as it substantially deviated from the original consultation, with three options, went in the wrong direction. It seems to be in the face of it that the national delegation should be firstly that planning officers should be making decisions where those applications are in line with an existing up-to- date local plan. And that should be very straightforward.

Secondly, they should be making the decisions where the decision is directly mandated in effect by the National development management policies. We do need I think to look at some of these additional planning issues before we get the debates and committee and report on the content of this bill. Also, I do hope that the provisions in the levelling up act in relation to neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood policy statements might be brought into force and in the absence of that I hope that the bill will use that because from the government point of view, if they want more homes built in the places where people want those homes to be built, neighbourhood planning has shown itself to be an effective mechanism for that purpose.

And also, in the locally led, in the locally Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions relating to locally led development and corporations. My friend and the frontbench referred to these provisions, the noble Lord Lord Best advocated very forcibly that the use of rampant corporations, but he didn't say which kind and I think we need to from the government whether they are going to make locally led urban department areas and development corporations available to be used for this purpose or whether they are planning to use government-controlled corporations, or whether they are planning in line with the provisions of the devolution white paper to focus on mayoral development corporations.

It's not just that we have It's not just that we have development corporations, or what powers they have, it's what kind of development corporations and this will make a big difference when we hear from the new towns ask force which I hope we will do before the summer recess. The final there want to say is, we all agree, and I share many of the objectives of this bill and I look forward to debating it, with a view to strengthening the achievement of those objectives.

We want to be able to deliver effectively on department plans but we need up-to-date local plans to make that happen. The member to have 70 local authority is that going to go under the old NPPS rather than the new NPPF and that in itself lost something like 15,000 potential homes being built, or requirement for those homes, year. It is important, with all of these changes, that we know how the government is going to give us more pace inputted for the planning reforms in place, alongside this bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly I must declare my involvement in family farming. my involvement in family farming. And secondly I would like to record my thanks to the built in for the my thanks to the built in for the courtesy in coming together to answer my series of very naive questions. I believe this bill is
16:58
Lord Cameron of Dillington Portrait Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-
questions. I believe this bill is essential to get out country moving again and I support what it is trying to achieve. Coming from the south-west I favour it eternally delayed project is the road which is vital for bringing tourists in and taking our manufactured goods out, mainly the A3 O3. The first time I saw a planning application for the Stonehenge bypass which is the key to unlocking it'll was in 1985, that's 40 years ago. And it still has not been built.

An hour long traffic jam still happens there. Not good. However the issue desperately needed to deal with this housing. It is affordable we lack, not executive houses, and as I've said many times, council houses, or the equivalent, would be good. Affordable rent in proper interactive communities, built to standards we are proud of, and I hope this bill will enable that to happen. Building standards need to be checked on, perhaps positive element corporations that Lord Best and I are both very keen on.

We also need to amend the right-to-buy which I hope is just around the corner. I'm all in favour of councils charging their own ring fenced planning fees, providing it gives the uncertainty to applications. I'm in favour of dedicated planning, training for planning committees, limiting the use of judicial reviews, encouraging faster access to electricity supply, etc. The government's biggest problem is going to be the availability of skills. Where are they going to find the hundreds of new planners? The thousands of new builders accept? And above all, the hundreds of new skilled ecologist, Natural England and others will need to make this bill work successfully.

As I understand it, EDPS are earning about protected sand protected species. In the developments current Will continue to run in parallel. There is going to be huge competition for a small supplied ecologist between developers, local authorities and Natural England and I'm not sure that is the capacity out there. A three of the bill is its biggest weakness and I hope the promised amendments will satisfy the OEP will be announced soon. The bigshot full is the lack of education hierarchy. The bill needs to provide for subsequent management of the land involved in EDP.

It's a variable having achieved a full improvement by 10 years but what is to prevent the overall improvement disappearing in the land in question In part four I am pleased to see that the heat networks will be included in the list of necessary infrastructure, selling our promoters to the House for some time, particularly where TfL or heat is involved. And I not keen on Natural England having the compulsory purchase powers, but I think it is better and cheaper if they contract with landowners to get that band management they want so I suppose if you are trying to receive land or a land management program it land or a land management program it is probably best if, as President Roosevelt said, you speak softly and carry a big stick, but I hope the powers will not be used to often.

There is an issue with compulsory purchases that need to be looked at, namely the way that an acquiring authority or more often the private sector is active in the name when implementing the CPO and seem to think they can write rough shod over the normal rules governing the conveyance of property. With CPO powers in our armoury they seem to turn into badly behaved bully boys and there are stories of people whose land and businesses have been confiscated and two years later we are still waiting for payment.

It is outrageous, so I am proposing the introduction of an enforceable Code of Practice to ensure that the confiscation of property by the state which can be devastating for an individual or a business is accomplished in as fair and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

civilised a manner as possible. My Lords, first I declare my long-standing interest in the
17:02
Lord Patten Portrait Lord Patten (Conservative)
-
-
personal middle market mass housebuilder Fossil disposition has given me a ringside seat to observe the vicissitudes that have beset house building and planning over decades with their cycles and ups and downs which no one has ever managed to defeat. Secondly, whatever the bill before us as assault to do, no way can it suddenly abolish the cycles in favour of a smooth, ever upward, movement of growth. Just by virtue of the men and women in Whitehall knowing best.

I do not believe that is possible. For I do not think this unfortunate bill cannot buy some unfortunate bill cannot buy some just fix the cyclical ups and downs which rather depend on the safety of the economy, on levels of taxation, unavailability capital and skilled labour and do this simply by grabbing more power from the centre. Indeed, the record sadly shows that no Conservative or Labour Government since 1945 has ever met their stated aspirations or hopes or pledges to build this or that particular number of homes in any one year or in any one decade.

It is amusing to see the one decade. It is amusing to see the 300,000 per annum still is the hot favourite target. The Prime Minister and his Ministers have since 2024 said much about their target intent. I would like to ask the noble minister this afternoon when he replies tonight for a bit more clarity, he has got an enviable reputation for being straightforward, absolutely giving it between the eyes and I hope I seek not to damage in any way at all in his important role, but I would like to ask him therefore what is the number of homes that he expects to see built purge air until August 2029 when his lot will come to the end of their present term.

And as the number still to be 1.5 million? And I look forward to his answer tonight. So sorry. This colleague cannot tonight give me that answer, I very happy to have as drafted by the Noble Lord and answer to be placed in writing in the library of the House, so we can all see exactly what it is. This is because for years as a decent enough amount of time for them to be called out to have been shown to pledge the unattainable and I do not think that massive planning, with local communities and councils is going to be any guarantee of success.

Thirdly, although LNG can recycle the manufacture of new pledges and we did a bit of this in the last year, unfortunately we cannot manufacture new supplies of land. I have said in your low chips house before it is a scarce resource. All new housing cannot be built on re- used brown or grey or green tinged land or areas that were once occupied by military bases or reopened as a military base quite shortly. Much green or green tinged plans alas will have to be built on to provide new homes for young people.

I accept sometimes this will be necessary and it is the only way that young people will get their homes, but I doubt that it will be easily accepted from distant London SW one or to be decided centrally. Local involvement will always be needed to generate acceptability for planners do not create communities, only people create communities. So, to make this happen, houses must, themselves, look good. It is very possible to build well but also beautifully and to human scale as the late Sir Roger said.

A very rare bird, University moral philosopher and urban thinker. And we should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heed the advice that he gave. I expressed my interest as a chief engineer working and the chief engineer working and the vice-chair and the co-chair of legislatures for nuclear. As an legislatures for nuclear. As an engineer, of course, I very keen to see Britain get some building. And see Britain get some building. And this bill is, I think, the single most important piece of legislation in the government's agenda to unlock growth and deliver those many growth and deliver those many strategic targets that the noble of the Mr Halfon, including housing and
17:08
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
the Mr Halfon, including housing and defence. And it is vitally important, therefore, that Parliament gets this right and I do very much welcome the direction of travel in the bill and I think we are coming up with number of very positive radical ideas here for the system. But the biggest problem in my view for the bill being able to deliver the objectives is part three which has been presented as a solution to infrastructure through the system may be a solution for housing, but as the Noble Lord set out very broadly held concerns did not deliver for infrastructure because by the time the Government comes along and identifies the problem there is unlikely to be time for that to be put in place to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

So, what that means is that there will be that twin track approach which could have the unfortunate side effect of adding to the planning system for large infrastructure, so I would be grateful if in something of the Noble Lord the Minister could expand on how she sees EV's delivering for large infrastructure. The core of many of the issues in the cost and years and delay to our large infrastructure is the habitat regulations. I think that is fundamentally what it comes down to, of course, they are very necessary, but they have been increasing issues we have seen in terms of how they have been interpreted, and Catherine Howard mentioned previously they have been doing some sterling work with ecologists and is as on some really straightforward, commonsense clarifications for habitat regulations and they would put more scientific rigour to the whole process that has been set out in the process in a series of articles which I hope officials will see.

For example, the habitat regulations are worded to requiring a negative cause of preventable not be an effect on a particular habitat of a proposed project. This is not really where the words are, we come up with theories and we design experiments to try and falsify them, but proving that something does not exist is not that something does not exist is not for survival, so what that means is that currently it is not only overburdened and wastes precious time exploring hypotheticals which are not adequately underpinned by scientific evidence, and this is default of a system that asks them to improve the developments that will have no impact, meaning that they must investigate an account for possibilities and ecological evidence for.

So, the fundamental change is a positive change. Not to grab consent whether scientific evidence and this would have an immediate effect on freeing up scarce resources for Natural England to deliver on those goals while streamlining the planning process for all the projects going through the system, so there is a potential commonsense reform here that many ecologists are supportive of and the measures in the bill to speed up the delivery of the infrastructure projects, this Parliament, including the much needed project at the centre of the government's Spending Review and infrastructure strategy as well as delivering more effectively for nature.

Finally, I am grateful to the Minister, the Noble Lady the Minister, for engagement on carbon emissions in this session. And I wonder if she could see what plans the Government has to introduce common guidance or perhaps introduce a Ministerial statements clarifying the approach that local pharmacies should take. In conclusion, I believe there is a significant risk if part three does not deliver infrastructure for all Governments great aspirations for infrastructure will not be realised and I look forward to further engagement with Government I think on our pragmatic solutions to mitigate this risk to help get Britain building and to deliver in the future.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great pleasure to follow the Noble Lord. I hope he will not mind my saying so, it does illustrate by the expertise he has illustrate by the expertise he has brought to this debate how we are going to introduce this and it brings in to our midst useful brings in to our midst useful expertise of a nonpartisan nature once the constitutional vampirism once the constitutional vampirism which this Government is planning has removed such people from this has removed such people from this House.

I wholeheartedly support the overall objectives of this bill to overall objectives of this bill to speed up and streamline the delivery of homes and critical infrastructure. The current delays infrastructure. The current delays and costs are intolerable. The Thames crossing has cost £1.2 Thames crossing has cost £1.2 billion just on the planning process for a single sold as being cut if that is what you do. That is more than building the longest under than building the longest under river tunnel in Europe cost in Norway.

A 25 mile bike pass costs Norway. A 25 mile bike pass costs £250 million just for the planning process. And virtually every housing
17:13
Lord Lilley Portrait Lord Lilley (Conservative)
-
-
process. And virtually every housing project in my old constituency, parts of the country, faced objections locally. We have created an effect a view to a see in this country, objectors can impose such costs and delays on projected projects that project developers that they effectively can veto those projects going ahead. We must find ways of reducing the power of that and I welcome steps in this bill that do that. We have got to prevent, we have got to stop local vetoes preventing delaying and raising the costs of building homes, transport, and energy infrastructure.

The noble Baroness pigeon loaded the French success in building large infrastructure projects. I recall my much lamented projects. I recall my much lamented friend the late Lord Low, telling me when he was energy secretary he asked his French counterpart how they were able to build nuclear power stations with so little objection. Across France. And the French minister without realising the double entendre applied when you are training swamp, you do not consult the frogs. But we do have to consult the Britons in this country.

And while a less Draconian way of undermining the democracy is to enable developers to often compensate objectives. This is in the energy sector which is my principal concern to lead to access lower cost and most reliable energy sources and enable them to reach that users without imposing extra costs, so I welcome the measures in this bill that will enable the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to compensate people living in properties near to new transmission network structures by transmission network structures by But I can't see why it should be limited to those living near networks and certainly upgrades of networks, as the bill says at present for the one at extend the scheme's accommodation might be offered to those living near, say, proposed onshore windmill, if they are the cheapest form of renewable energy.

And better still, give companies proposing to drill gas and oil onshore the right to compensation. I have had one company that would be prepared to offer £1000 per household for those living within a mile of a proposed welcome if a majority votes to allow such drilling to take place and subsequently to offer a reduction in their gas bills if the well proves successful for the life of that well. And I shall put down amendments to that effect. Another aspect of this bill, which relates to the energy sector is the section enabling the government to introduce a cap and floor scheme, the finance energy schemes.

The explanatory note makes clear that it is expected to relate to new reservoirs, like I mentioned the existing reservoir. But I have to say there are very few potential sites. But the notes also referred to your Lordships house's Select Committee report on long duration energy storage Get on with It, which was mostly about hydrogen as a form of storage. I would again I left the House, and the government, to the dangers of pressing ahead and investing in immature technologies, prematurely.

That technology hasn't been developed, it is usually costly at the moment. And we should not empower the government to go ahead with it before it has proved its worth. Finally, I would add if we are going to build 1.5 million homes and I hope we will, and I will help the government in its measures to make that easy to get planning permission, we have to recognise that, at present, 40% of those will be taken up, in effect, by the rate of immigration, foreseen by the office of National statistics, over the next five years.

We have to remember it's not just about supply, it's about demand, but no one will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ever mention it. My Lords, I am the Chair of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am the Chair of Addington housing company that specialises in affordable home. But specialises in affordable home. But I am not going to talk about that. Because for many years now, I have been the honorary president of the Carbon Capture And Storage
17:18
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke Portrait Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Labour)
-
-
Carbon Capture And Storage Association, which also includes utilisation. And frankly, I never thought the day would come when the government would put CCUS at the heart of such a significant piece of legislation. So, I want to say thank you. This bill has the potential to turn our Net Zero ambitions into real-world jobs, investment and long-term economic renewal. The Climate Change Committee has acknowledged there is no credible path to Net Zero without carbon capture and storage. And the confirmation of funding for high net and the East Coast, plus the buildout, alongside the support for Acorn and Viking to reach final investment decisions in this Parliament has put a spring in my step.

And you can probably tell from my accent, which one gives me the most spring in my step. Recent financial... The recent financial close for Net Zero Teeside, at Liverpool-based CCA further highlights the momentum. But risk still remains. Inconsistent planning frameworks that are crying out for updating could threaten delay or even derail progress. Right at the time when we need to accelerate. And for those of us, like me, brought up in the lands of coal, iron, steel and shipbuilding, this isn't just a climate solution.

The opportunity analysis by the CCSA points to 50,000 skilled jobs and almost 90 billion in economic value by 2050. That is something that should not be sneezed at. And add here that the potential for large-scale CO2 storage and industrial decarbonisation. Traditional industries like coal, iron, steel and shipbuilding can reform into clean energy industries. And that means a lot to the kind of communities that are used to represent in the other place. The same skill sets required for carbon capture and storage.

But the planning must reflect the national role of CCUS infrastructure, even if it is only for short distances. Now, I know there is a possibility of some pretty minor amendments that can have a great impact on the future of carbon capture utilisation and storage. Performing current guidelines, like those in the pipelines act of 1962, can streamline the consenting process for CO2 pipelines, and that kind of modernisation will allow us to keep with partners, like Norway, who are already planning cross-border CO2 transport, and Norway has been very much in the lead with a lot of this technology and its worth looking at.

This is all about boosting investor confidence. Because it will take investment from outside government that will make this work. And work in the long term. At committee stage, we will need those amendments to designate CO2 pipelines and carbon capture equipment as nationality significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act of 2008, remove the requirement for special parliamentary procedures in the Pipelines Act of 1962, for pipeline compulsory purchase orders. This will help unlock the £9.4 billion already committed by government to CCUS delivery and unable clusters like Scotland, Teeside, the North West, and Humberside, to move forward.

We have the potential to be a global leader in the development and export of carbon management technologies. Let's seize the moment. Let's go for it, because there are great, great reserves of energy out there that can help us. Thank you.
17:23
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it actually takes a lot to shock me but this bill did, still does, and it will take a lot of remembrance to get it right. -- Amendments to get it right. I was shocked by part three of the bill. As my noble friend, Baroness Scott, mentioned, some of the amendments that were rejected by this House. They were much shorter than the scale of what we are seeing in part three, which can only be considered a complete and utter assault on our natural environment.

In terms of things what could be done, there are aspects I am sure we will all be sharing, but we need to go through carefully and properly understand, instead of some of the various mantras that have been coming out, as desiring to put this bill forward. There is no doubt we want to have more homes built, but my Lords, as Lord Birt mentioned earlier, it is actually finances that are stopping a lot of houses being built. There are 700,000 empty homes in this country.

Not second homes, holiday homes, empty homes. There are a million planning consents still available for homes to be built in this country. Over 1/4 of a billion of those in London. So what is stopping them? It is about financing, and about how they continue to make the most money and I am not criticising them for that. But simply by trashing lots of the countryside, trashing nature, is necessarily going to deliver the infrastructure and the homes this country and people in this country need.

I say this because I looked at the human rights memorandum carefully and in terms of compulsory purpose -- Purchase there is a lot that talks about the public interest. I declare one interest, I live in Suffolk, I live close to some proposed energy infrastructure, and I'm not a NIMBY, I was actually accurate in supporting it, as long as it met environment of a Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations, as it did satisfactorily. But a couple of projects that come to mind I am not clear how this bill will address it.

People are concerned has taken so long to get a variety of projects and I understand why. But one of the key issues that happen for Sizewell C, all of a sudden, due to a High Court ruling, the local water company said they couldn't guarantee to supply the water. That impact was one of the things that massively derailed the construction of Sizewell C at that point for stopping even then, when they started coming up with solutions, for example, we have a water shortage here in East Anglia, a lot of farmers are going to be affected and food security will be affected, when they can't get the water they are used to.

They have good water in East Anglia, high productivity. But when it came to building a reservoir, we needed, for the creation of Sizewell C, farmers can use it as well, and often said no. use it as well, and often said no. They said no. -- Ofgem said no. So what I hope is we get to a situation where this bill will allow lots of creative solutions, instead of some of the challenges it is going to bring, and the struggle we will have to reach the target already set in primary legislation.

My Lords, part two I think is an affront to democracy, I will give another local example. So, there is no doubt that building housing on any greenfield, not necessarily greenbelt but Greenfield often tends to be controversial locally. But I pay credit to the councils that try to get this balance right. What worries me about removing decisions from local councillors, giving it planning officers, is now we have got even more targets going into the countryside, for housing. The situations, for example, where the plans set identity, and then officers are recommending outline planning, where the density was only one third, for the development of what should have been in the plan.

It doesn't take too much of a brain to work out that in order to meet the rest of the housing things, they are now going to have to use three times the amount of land. In terms of, there are many clauses here which I will be examining carefully. Not just clause 89 with the extensive Henry VIII schedule five, clause 91, about compulsory purchase, but by the way, we can all be happy, it doesn't apply to Crown land. Why not? It should be the first to be considered for couples repurchase any nature development.

I think it is also wrong that Natural England get so many powers, it is not about Natural England themselves but it should be in the hands of the Secretary of State, who should be devising these, so if they choose to delegate for Natural England, that's a different matter. But the secondary -- Secretary of State are accountable, that is what we need to fix. What is being used a lot as well for some there is a variety of issues to do with water, but in particular, what I hope is that what the government will be open to a variety of committee development rights, particularly ponds and helping our farmers, whether it is about sustainable drainage.

But bear in mind, I do appreciate Bannya reservoirs have not been built in a long time and I don't really understand why Thames is dragging their feet. But, take Abingdon capacity over Essex, 10 years ago, the capacity went up by 16% full stops, stuff is happening in this country. And we should just be trying to use every bit of nature as an excuse on why certain things aren't happening. The 814 was built on time, head of time, and below budget. So, I am very sorry, but I will be pressing the case for a lot more social housing.

But not at the expense of trashing what we hold precious in this country.
17:29
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Portrait Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The number of speakers reflects just how serious this chamber is taking the issue of housebuilding and infrastructure. I refer to part two to start with, of the bill, spatial strategies. For those of us who have been involved in local government for a while, this is reminiscent of the RDA era, part one of chapter 2 lists what a strategic planning authority means. But there is no mention of the national parks. This seems extraordinary as they are absolutely vital to ensuring strategic planning in their areas is done with empathy and sensitivity to individual environments.

Access to the countryside's and the contribution it makes to health and well-being is well documented. This is a vital role of the National Parks. They are involved in assisting the provision of affordable home and have many permissions for housing granted. Currently in the South Downs National Park, there are over 2,000 homes with permitted permission, of which 500 affordable, but all unbuilt. National Park authorities are also not mentioned as being part of strategic planning boards. Given their role in mineral extraction and waste disposal, surely they should be present round the table and fully involved.

Can the Minister say whether this omission is an oversight or deliberate? And if so, oversight or deliberate? And if so, Turn out of the role of the community land trust organisation for their currently 290 CLT in England which owned 2,100 assets, including 1,000, including 1953 affordable homes. Many CLT's provide housing in National Park, where smaller scale affordable housing development is essential. Almost half the rural affordable housing projects in the pipeline in Devon involve CLT's.

This was a result of a community Housing Federation work and shows the potential and appetite among communities to increase housing supply if they are confident it will result in meeting local needs. It is not helpful that the Government has recently ended funding in the name of the planning support. The Government has also not reinstated any funding for community led housing. Whilst I know that Minister Baroness Taylor has been very positive in writing about this, the Government has actually made it harder for communities to play this role.

The pipeline of new products, projects, in the south-west, has almost completely dried up. This is very disappointing indeed. Projects that were led by communities are said to be replaced by the imposed Government dictate. Is this really what the Minister wants? I turn now to the issue of the lack of stopping places and permanent sites for gypsies and traveller and the Bishop of Manchester has raised this. Every local authority should provide transit and permanent sites alongside other traditional stopping places.

Thus, dramatically reducing those forced to stop on what the law now classes as illegal encampments. Since the statutory duty to provide sites was repealed in 1994, any local authority sites have been built. Private provision has increased, thus whilst this is welcome it is not accessible from any. In planning for homes, it is crucial to acknowledge and include provision for all our communities, local authority managed sites remain vital for a culturally pertinent way of living. Long-standing planning failures have created a severe shortage of safe, suitable sites.

Children will be present and have their access to education and health services that are almost non- existent if they are continually moved on. Treating them as an underclass reinforces their marginalisation from the rest of society. Lastly, my first bill was the housing and planning Bill of 2016 which has already been refracted. Lots of warm words about delivery. I urge the Government not to follow the example of the previous administration. Housing is key to economic and personal well- being.

The housing minister must be totally committed to delivering the Government goals and staying post for at least the length of the parliamentary session. This will not deliver. Being the housing minister should not be steppingstone to another role. It is an essential part of delivery and needs

**** Possible New Speaker ****

personnel. My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness to follow the noble Baroness Bakewell. And the bill is trying to do what is needed for the housing do what is needed for the housing and I do not think the bill is needed for anyone, really, the disputes the simple fact that the gap between demand and supply gap between demand and supply continues to widen. And we know as many noble Lords have said that is many noble Lords have said that is at least in part the consequence of a planning system that is a planning system that is unbelievably complex and cumbersome
17:35
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Portrait Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Conservative)
-
-
and often just flies against common sense. I want to focus on one aspect of the bill and start by saying that I appreciate the Minister's opening remarks in relation to nature and I know from my own experience with dealing with the Minister he believes very much what he said, but I have concerns about it. Think the bill like others before it on this issue seems to pitch nature as a blocker to development. In addition to their not been any new measures they can see to ensure new developments are made, some valuable protections are being removed, even if by default, so clause 62, for example, says the nature improvement is to be funded by developers in a way that does not make development economically viable, but in a country like ours, that is so nature denuded and where our biodiversity continues to plummet, surely some development in some genuinely sensitive and important areas should be economically not viable.

And the proposal we are seeing here it is hard to see how nature can ever win that contest, nor is it clear what the bill means for the future biodiversity obligations. Just to remind the noble Lords this is a new market created more or less by consensus by the two houses that has generated myriad businesses and schemes exactly as intended. Students, businesses, anyone that has moved into the new space will, undoubtedly, be feeling unsettled about their own future, so I hope we will have clarity from the Minister on that point.

There are lots of ways in which the bill could be construed and I hope, for example, that we will see significant strand of protections for irreplaceable habitats like ancient woodlands and insurance against risks highlighted in this bill. We have only 11/220 streams. And given the huge cost of communities of flooding, just makes no sense that the national framework still permits development on some functional flood planes. We have an opportunity here to change that as well as pursuing opportunities to simplify regulations and give nature a boost at the same time.

There will be plenty of opportunities to outline those examples in due course, but I want to focus on one measure which is particularly important. It is amongst the easiest and most cost-effective and effective steps we can take and is one that I previously championed with I have to say tremendous support from the then opposition, now Government. At the time of tabling my amendment of the noble Baroness Taylor said, and I love these words, we were delighted to see amendment 221 air related to the provision.

We believe that specifically including swift bricks as a measure of the bill to be incorporated in planning is justified in the unique nature of these precious birds. There is definitely a clear and present threat to the species and we hope the Government will accept this relatively small step that can make a world of difference to protecting our swift population and that will not be necessary for the Noble Lord to divide the House. I hope he knows he has our full support in this amendment, so you can imagine my delight when that amendment was resuscitated in the other house and reappeared as Barry Gardiner any bigger than 5 m in height.

The noble Lords will know because we debated this already that the breeding population has dropped for a staggering 6% between 1995 and 2020. We have known since 2002 that this rapid decline in swift and, it has to be said, primarily the consequence of a lack of cavity nesting sites, when we build new homes today, and when we renovate older homes are just does not accommodate in any way at all. This month we heard from the Government a welcome announcement in my view the confirmation that the national insulation budget of £13.2 billion will be spent in full, mostly on more insulation and that is good news but there is no protective legislation that birds do not stand a chance.

We know that this works as a reporter 96% occupancy and boxes this unanimous support from ornithologists, see Rory opposition from the developers and the parliamentary petition started by Hannah Taylor was, at the time it was launched, the fastest to reach 100,000, so it is so easy to do, it is cheap zero maintenance, zero expertise, so I would strongly encourage the Government to look at some of the great things that were said by the amendment to get this through, as noble Lords will know, I would encourage the Government to be sure that when the time comes, if it does not, it would not be necessary to divide the House.
17:40
Lord Mawson Portrait Lord Mawson (Crossbench)
-
-
We talk about anything of substance in five minutes on the subject so central to this Government, but having talked with colleagues in the industry, I would like to make the following brief points and declare my interest. Firstly, my colleagues are reassured by the purpose of drive that this Government is demonstrating in this policy area stop we need to help this bill get onto the statute book soon so that we can get building. Secondly, this bill needs to think more about building communities and place making, not just about building more soulless housing estates.

This Government is rightly committed to addressing a range of different problems. Housing, health, crime, education, net zero. The lessons from the history of failed housing estates from the 60s and 70s built by the public sector and worrying signs from too much of what is being built today is that if we build homes in the wrong way we will not only fail to help solve these problems but we will make them worse. We need to build places in stronger human cultures and communities, not just homes.

If you are in any doubt of what this means for local business, take five minutes and listen to Billy Connolly's description on YouTube of what happens to him and his family when they were moved out of their home and the community in Glasgow and placed in a soulless housing estate on the edge of town. No one can describe the experience more clearly than Billy. My colleagues and I are working on addressing precisely these issues in that context with some of our major developers.

We are happy to share our 360 approach to place making focused on buildings and culture with the Minister and her colleagues. Maybe she could let me know if there is interest. We are all very concerned about what happens, but how concerned are we about from a human so go on a multi-million pound new housing estate in East London whose two- year-old was already picking up needles in the play area? We all, I think, need to think very carefully together about how we do not repeat those mistakes in this next phase of development.

Thirdly, it is good news that planning officers will be given greater responsibility to determine matters submissions and schemes of allocated sites to a new proposed national scheme delegation. This should lead to greater consistency of approach and local planning authorities plus certainty and timeliness of decisions. The mandatory training of planning committee members should, in theory, also lead to uncertainty for applications that do not fit into the above national scheme of the delegation. Having sat on the planning committee for many years, I know how flawed these present processes are and I have walked too many local councillors play political games with these local processes.

Can I just say I do think her majesties opposition needs to think more clearly and there needs to be more clarity in the thinking of this matter and hopefully this will remove the restriction on 160,000 homes and starting with those restrictions. Allowing developers to pay into a Nature Restoration Fund rather than requiring site-specific ecological mitigation scheme. This should speed up the delivery of sites. There are, however, concerns to deliver a robust scheme on a timely basis.

Fifthly, the proposal in the bill to speed up the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure projects is also much welcomed and should provide greater clarity and certainty over the delivery of these projects. Having said all these positive views, there remains some challenges for business colleagues in the industry. The introduction of new cost boundary regional strategic planning on the one hand could be positive, driving a more joined up approach towards housing, economic, and infrastructure growth across LPAs. However, there are significant concerns about the potential delays to new local plans and housing schemes because of this structural change.

LT is would remain critically under resourced or are To forthcoming devolution and the abolition of the two tier authority system. Which, when tied in with the need to soon deliver these regional strategies, means there may be an awful lot of resource tied up in delivering restructuring and delivering local plans and housing schemes which are needed in the short-term. I finish with a reality check. The current length of timeframes for securing running permission would likely not stretch or shrink by a significant amount.

Bidding on a site now does not realistically generate volume for the large housing businesses until 2028, given the timescales associated with securing planning permission, selling consented land, securing reserved matters, signing section 106 agreements, and site By and large the bill is seen by many in the housing industry is very positive, with several of the changes proposed leading to quicker, more consistent and certain outcomes. However, this does have to be set against the wider context and systematic issues present which may limit the positive impact of these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reforms. My Lords, can I declare my environmental interest in the
17:46
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
environmental interest in the register. I think we all recognise the need for changes in the planning system to deliver really important infrastructure and housing, but we do need to recall the planning system is there to do more than dig, baby, dig. It is a more than a system for outcomes. It has become polarised over recent months, it is either development or the environment, but we are smarter than that. We can deliver both. But part three will need considerable change.

If we are going to do that. That is a view shared by the office of environmental protection, who regard this part of the bill is progressing -- Regressing from our environmental standards. Part three of the Are fine to deal with the delays in the planning system, opposed by environmental issues, best solved on a wider than site basis, and attachment bases, issues like nutrient neutrality, which has been mentioned, recreational pressures and other quality and quantity issues. But the system is not right for resolving many protected species issues, or for dealing with irreplaceable habitats.

For the latter, the clues on the pain, these habitats cannot be replaced. And indeed, both the revised NPPF and the guidelines made provision for their protection. So, I would ask the Minister to tell the House how irreplaceable habitats will be protected under part three. Part three also removes the snappily named mitigation hierarchy, which encourages developers and planners, is a step, to think hard about avoiding protected sites, the First, Do No Harm. If the government is going to meet its statutory nature conservation targets, it must both protect what is already there, by way of important nature, as well as creating more strategic habitat.

In part three delivery relies on Natural England which is already creaking for national resources and staff, can I ask my noble friend the Minister what assessment has been made for the capacity of Natural England, how many environmental delivery plans the government expects to actually prepare, and how long will that take? There are other issues in part three, which in the interest of time, I will pass over. I could go on. But I would begin to sound like the polarised narrative that I said we should avoid, and I don't believe that is where I stand, because we are smarter, there is a win-win solution.

Many of the elements of that system are already in place, and being put in place, by this government. The framework approach, regional spatial strategies, revise local plans, linked with local nature recovery strategies, all of which can enable developers to steer their applications to places where they could be sure of an easy run for the planning system. The ecological surveys and environmental impact assessments will have been done in advance, at strategy and plan level, and not be a delay factor in planning application stage.

There are other simple changes that will streamline the system. But I look forward to working with the Minister on alternative proposals. In the meantime, can the Minister advise us when we will see the government amendments, signalled by the Minister in the other place, to address these concerns. One last point I would like to make is it is true to say that several of the larger developers, both in infrastructure and in housing, are increasingly anxious about part three. Sweeping away important nature protections is not a good look for a housebuilder or an infrastructure developer, has pledged to deliver a national or international environmental accreditation.

They are concerned that this will be done in their name. They are also concerned that they will incur costs and complications, from having one system inside areas and another outside, as the noble Lord highlighted. Is the government listening to these concerns from the developers themselves? I look developers themselves? I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to the Minister's responses. My Lords, this bill is something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this bill is something like that popular old spaghetti western, The Good, the Bad, and the Oakley. Let's begin with the good. The chief among them is the strong recognition the status quo was no
17:51
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
longer working. If a structure delivery has been sluggish. Housing needs to remain unmet, and many local authorities are still grappling with outdated planning frameworks, and has been said, many do not have an up-to-date local plan. The icing on the cake for me is the welcome return of strategic planning. And with it, empower development corporations. These are aspects we are missing previously and both are welcome and overdue. The emphasis on streamlining infrastructure is, in principle, sensible one.

If you want to tackle the climate crisis, deliver on Net Zero, and provide energy security. We simply cannot have infrastructure mired in red tape for years on end. And the focus on digitalisation and data that planning is very much a step in the right direction. Digital tools mean that more people can engage meaningfully with the process, then that's a win for both democracy and delivery. I also acknowledge the proposed reforms for compulsory purchase powers. It handled fairly and transparently, this could enable more strategic regeneration on brownfield development, which has got to be preferable for the continued encroachment on our greenbelt.

But then, my Lords, we come to the bad. The bill talks a good game about speeding up delivery, but firstly, we must not conflate delivery with planning permissions. As has been said, there are hundreds of thousands of units already with permission that are simply not been built. Let's have some courage and address the broken land market and the incentives that currently reward land banking. That is not about redtape, that's about political will. Throughout the whole bill, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords, there is concern about capacity to deliver.

Our local authorities are expected to implement much of this bill. As we have heard, they are already overstretched, underfunded, and struggling to recruit and retain skilled planning officer. Now, I know the noble Lady the Minister will tell us if the government's plans and funding to remedy this long-standing problem, but the gap between these friends achieving fruit, i.e., people in post doing the job, is a gap of many years. How will the government fill that gap? And my Lords, there certainly isn't time here to comment on the capacity within the construction industry, which is also demonstrably lacking, but the Minister may have an update for us on that.

My Lords, the bill treads worryingly into over centralisation, I understand the driver for that, after decades of failure, but we must not fall into the trap of sidelining local voices, in the name of speeding up the process. From experience, I know that the best planning outcomes emerge with communities, councillors and developers work collaboratively within a coherent framework which hopefully the Spatial Development Strategies will provide. The bill needs to be clear about the value of and the appropriate place for the public's voice to be heard.

Now, it's clear even from our debate for part three of the bill has attracted the most concern. The message that is replace for robust environmental safeguards from a financial levy. There are concerns that changes to the environmental assessment may risk weakening vital safeguards. We need to be absolutely certain that the new processes will uphold our biodiversity, our heritage, and climate commitments. We must insist that any levy achieve significant improvements, not mere compensation. And to the ugly.

As we have observed in other bills, and increasingly so, is a tendency to present underdeveloped legislation that lacks detailed policy. And grants ministers abroad delegated to fill in the gaps later. Most notably in this bill as the proposed national scheme of delegation. This is a significant shift with substantial powers, given to the Secretary of State where we are yet again being asked to give the government a blank check on matters of national significance and some controversy. Disappointingly absence are provisions to strengthen community engagement, to empower neighbourhood planning, to bolster community land trusts, measures that actually empower citizens to shape their places.

Rather than merely react to what developers propose. Indeed, I would urge the government to consider the division for high quality design is a core component of the Spatial Development Strategies, created with communities, rather than handed down to them. My Lords, we will support the good, amended a bad command call the good, amended a bad command call out the ugly. -- Amend the bad, and call out the ugly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as Chair of Pierce the Planet, one thing we can all agree on is our planning system
17:56
Baroness Willis of Summertown Portrait Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
needs to be reformed. And in that sense, I welcome this bill, but if we are to ensure a healthy and resilient future for people and the planet, we also need to ensure our planning system at the same time, is delivering these 1.5 million houses and major infrastructure, also delivers towards our environmental and climate targets. What we need is a climate and nature duty which would run through the planning system, and ensure consistency and decision-making, by treating them as material considerations, and give nature and climate targets proper planning weight.

Yet what we have in our current system is already too piecemeal. And now this bill brings in yet another set of reforms, which we have not -- Which if we're not careful will result in conflicting legislation and strategies all pulling against each other. I know other laws have commented on this, but in this respect, my Lords, it's part three of the bill which is of most concern. Because if it is left as it is, this will lead to regression in the legal certainty for nature, a removal of the mitigation hierarchy, and conservation measures that can be delayed by a decade after the damage has been done.

So, to associate with this, I have three specific concerns that would be helpful to hear the Minister's opinion on. The first, as highlighted by Baroness Young, is the bill fails to include any mention of protection of irreplaceable habitats. Such as protective blanket peatlands, aged woollens, chalk schemes, and grasslands. Currently, these habitats are given strict protection under the habitats directive and the wildlife act, as well as protection under the hierarchy. In this bill, the EDP proposal turns this process on its head.

It would allow developers to pay a levy, and skip straight to compensation. But how can you compensate or restore elsewhere, when habitats can take hundred, if not thousands of years, to restore. For example, take the SSSI peat bog, it has taken years to grow as it is now, and its current rate, if we destroy it, it will take 240 human generations later to see it restored. This is clearly ridiculous and allowing harm to these replaceable habitats, in exchange for future compensation, would be a grave mistake.

Second, the bill only views nature is important to protect for its inherent value. And yet, we now have huge amounts of evidence, including the UK government, that the ecosystem provided by nature are important in the role for climate mitigation, flood risk protection, pollination, clean water, air, good quality soils. It is also widely acknowledged, including the Treasury, that these natural capital assets are, if they are allowed to degrade any further or destroyed, there could be significant financial impacts.

So, the Green financials Institute, their 2025 report, I would recommend you read it, if you do not know this data, or nature - related financial risks, for example, estimated the further deterioration of our natural capital assets could lead to an estimated six to 12% loss of GDP by 2030. How will this bill protect important natural capital assets? Third and finally, in this bill, there is no mention of the need to preserve Green Spaces Bill and nature in cities. This is a major omission in my view, given the abundance of data incorporation level evidence, including papers published most recently in Lancet and the British Medical Journal, demonstrating green space in cities is critically important for health and well-being of others humans.

So green space within 15 minutes walking distance has been agreed, in our international legislation. And so, whereas in this bill? Alongside any new housing development, there should be provision for green space within 15 minute walking distance. To conclude, my Lords, I firmly believe it's possible to achieve nature and climate positive urban development but we do need to be clear about how it should be prioritised within the system. And ensure decision-making is more balanced and consistent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the cost of energy has been hinted at this afternoon. However, the cost of energy is one However, the cost of energy is one of the most important infrastructure of the most important infrastructure I serve on the Board of Directors of I serve on the Board of Directors of a global energy company. Today, the a global energy company. Today, the United kingdom has the most expensive industrial energy electricity costs among developed nations. With British industry paying four times as much as the paying four times as much as the United States, according to the IBA.

Meanwhile, British households are Meanwhile, British households are paying, on average, $0.40 a kilowatt hour compared to $0.18 in the United hour compared to $0.18 in the United States and just eight cents in China, according to statistics. This China, according to statistics. This situation could get worse, as AI data centres raise demand, constrain data centres raise demand, constrain electricity grids, and put further pressure on energy costs. It seems pressure on energy costs. It seems to me ideal Planning and to me ideal Planning and Infrastructure Bill should invest in first capital and critical infrastructure, including transport and housing.

This is the government's funding commitment but Britain must also invest in bringing down its punitive costs of NG. Reducing the cost of energy is the ultimate noninflationary economic stimulus this country urgently needs. Especially given that this month the OECD cut the forecast for the UK growth from 1.4% to 1.3% for this year and down to just 1% in 2026. Reducing the cost of energy increases both the product margin for businesses and disposable income for households.

Both net good the economy. Moreover, lower energy costs these the financial pressure on public goods such as the National Health Service and local authorities. I welcome the government's plans to reduce electricity costs by 20 to 25% by 2027 for electricity and manufacturers. However, this still leaves higher energy costs for the rest of the private sector, the public sector, and for households. It is my contention that an effective infrastructure policy should reflect at least three points as it pertains to reducing energy costs.

First, for the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom should maximise all sources of energy, including both renewables and conventional energy in order to bring down energy costs and secure a stronger economic future. This stance would ensure that Britain can begin a key global competitive advantage, energy production. As a small step, I pleased to see the Government is looking to allow new ads occasion is in licence to oil and gas in the North Sea. Second, AI and agent to AI in particular offer real, tangible promise, to bring down the cost of the elements of energy production such as exploration, drilling, and transmission.

Therefore, AI adoption should be a centrepiece of AI policy planning and infrastructure planning with the 20%. Third, there is an opportunity for dematerialisation. Simply put, this is the ability to get more power out of the same energy. For example, in manufacturing, this would mean using lighter materials for car bodies to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Currently, businesses in academia are leading innovation in dematerialisation, but it is vital that Government supports the science and research in this specific area.

By taking these three steps, we achieve the two goals of lowering energy costs which catalyses economic growth, and reducing emissions. A key piece of our energy transition admissions. Many aspects regarding the path of the energy transition are rooted in assumptions transition are rooted in assumptions from three or four years ago. Yet so from three or four years ago. Yet so much has changed since 2022. In terms of our energy security, our economic outlook, and our economic outlook, and our understanding of what technology can do to reduce energy costs.

Britain's do to reduce energy costs. Britain's natural result, wealth, and the emerging era of technology, thankfully, Anna was to pursue both economic growth and the effective economic growth and the effective energy transition. I support the direction of this bill, but I feel direction of this bill, but I feel there remains considerable scope for Government to reduce energy costs, both through the bill and through broader policy.
18:06
18:07
Lord Naseby Portrait Lord Naseby (Conservative)
-
-
follow the Noble Lady, raising such an important intervention in this an important intervention in this bill. And as I listened early this afternoon to the Minister I was pleased with the way he delivered pleased with the way he delivered this particular bill for us. And I think he will have sensed there is, think he will have sensed there is, across the House, a wish for us to move forward and to help the move forward and to help the Government succeed in the objectives they have set.

And I know that this is shared by his Noble Friends who I is shared by his Noble Friends who I have talked to about the new account. I myself would like to account. I myself would like to cover just three aspect shortly. Firstly, my own, the privilege to be Firstly, my own, the privilege to be elected leader and chairman of housing of the London Borough of Islington in 1968. The only Conservative leader of the London Borough's far from Islington. And Borough's far from Islington.

And when we took power I am the son of an architect we did a complete an architect we did a complete review, looked at a place called the crumbles which was run by the plc, crumbles which was run by the plc, an early Victorian building where the residents had to have the toilets on alternate floors. I said to them, do we really have to continue with buildings this tall? No, he says. If you have got a vision, then you as councillor, I have been working in low-level intensive housing.

And I invite the Minister perhaps to go there sometime and see the results of his vision and our ability as the local council to get it built, so that was an exciting exercise. Secondly, I think it is still relevant today, my wife and I bought a small terraced house in Gerard Road. It did have sort of a bathroom. It did have may be a kitchen. But there was a process for a young couple with a Babel which we had to get a grant which we had to manage.

And we did it. And that restored that property for the best of my knowledge long long time. And I think that time has come again because I have visited one or two properties which are in a terrible state, and young couples have the energy and desire to bring them up to modernity. So, that was my personal experience. I did actually write a pamphlet called the disaster of labour and I do not think the Government is proposing directly about in local Government.

I hope not. Those are my experiences there. And not certain about new housing. Absolutely vital. Thinking about it. And the problem today, one of the biggest problems, is building or potentially building on a floodplain. And it will get worse, because we know from all the evidence that the library in full is going up by 10% in approximately one year. We know that the intensity of the rainfall is greater now than it was 10 years ago. And against that background, frankly, I do not think we should allow any building on the floodplain.

And I think that is an important element. Conversely, I do think we need to work with the major on this. I am not one with the work of major housebuilders. They have to have permission for at least three years if they are to run a valuable business, and yes, it is quite right to say with the new housing bill that yes, you have got roofing, that will help with Solar Energy UK. I do not think you can tell that lead pumps into every property.

That is not feasible. I worked in whole in my early stages. And row after row of terraced housing. Those parties cannot have heat pumps. It is against that background that I would like to see, as we look again, at gas being put in and used as our vehicle with hydrogen by heating in particularly the areas of major terrorist building. And I have done some work with that particular industry, the gas industry, and what goes with it.

And, basically, it is safe. And it works. I can finally to new towns so I was representing Northampton South for 23 years, in Newtown, and usually not welcomed by the local council, I thought a lot about it and I said no, we need to welcome it, we need more housing in this area. We need proper housing, a mix of housing, and we were getting it from the new towns, but the new towns of the future we must make sure there are sufficient facilities for sport, libraries, education, and all those facilities and the proposals from the inquiry recently proposed that the Government should do 12.

My judgement, three or four was more than enough. There are opportunities there and certainly speaking purely for myself I and delighted to work with them on any project they may have and to take it forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to say a few words about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to say a few words about something that has not been talked about very much, if I can turn this damn thing off, sorry, it happened in my Select Committee yesterday and it was not very good. About it was not very good. About planning. Because planning comes up a great deal. It is a great bill. a great deal. It is a great bill. And there is a lot about the different ways of obtaining planning. The Planning Inspectorate, planning.

The Planning Inspectorate, but what I cannot find is anything about planning when it comes to railways or canals because, historically, planning permission has been obtained through a Hybrid bills. And I have been involved in a bills. And I have been involved in a number of hybrid projects, HS1, he number of hybrid projects, HS1, he just two more recently, and I chaired the Select Committee project chaired the Select Committee project in east London. And there is one in east London.

And there is one thing in common which worries me because with greater pressure on
18:15
18:15
18:15
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
judge in any other court or an inspector in the planning becomes half a dozen Members of Parliament half a dozen Members of Parliament in your Lordships house, you are in your Lordships house, you are expected to act as judge which, full transparency, full fairness, listen to all the evidence, both from the promoter and from the people who are promoter and from the people who are petitioning, and then make a decision. That all sounds very easy decision. That all sounds very easy until you look and see, first of all, how is the committee, the all, how is the committee, the Select Committee, it is not like the Select Committee, it is not like the Select Committee we have here, it is a special Select Committee to act as judge and service for the particular project by the Government.

And I have to say that when you start have to say that when you start looking at who is selected, a lot of looking at who is selected, a lot of the time the selection is based on have you behaved in the house? Have you voted with your party? Or have you not been there. And if you are speaking against the party to often you are going against that committee which I do not do now and I think it has got to a stage where the committee you can look at them and say I go over my correspondence and maybe I will be asleep after lunch and I brought that up quite often.

And the petitioners that are not helped by the very expensive lawyers they are employing. But the they are employing. But the Being told through a process that it's all very difficult, you are not going to win but you could try, and they more or less have to accept the decision of the so-called court, which is a lot of pressure from ministers and everyone else to come out in favour of the petition out in favour of the petition promoter.

So, I would like to ask my noble friend, not necessarily tonight, but I think it deserves a petition when we get to committee stage, to say do we need to use the hybrid build process for railways and all canals any more? Because the planning process we have seems to work very well and people have confidence in it and certainly on the basis of HS1, I can go on to compensation and things like that, I will not now, people are very upset about it.

They get badly treated and then they are not paid their compensation. Whether that is related, I do not know. I think we ought to have a debate about it, because I suspect the reason for not having the changes -- Change is because Parliament sees itself as supreme, we are good at being supreme here, and even more supreme down the other end, but for this, which is basically a court, we should give it to the professionals. So, I will be trying to come with a petition, which may at least enable some debate to take place, I'm sure I will be told why it won't work, but let's see if it will work.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

... To build more homes and infrastructure for our country is welcome. It is indeed time to get Britain building again. However, Britain building again. However, there is a danger in this bill of counsel blaming and nature blaming counsel blaming and nature blaming which ignores recent history. According to the CPRE, a staggering According to the CPRE, a staggering 1.2 million homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. This highlights that the built. This highlights that the problem is not always the blockers in communities, it's often the developers banking land, and failing to build.

While we support strongly to build. While we support strongly the aspiration of 1.5 million new
18:18
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
homes in this bill, regrettably it doesn't include any specific target for the building of 150,000 social homes per year. A vital commitment in our own manifesto. How can we treat tackle the housing emergency, get families out of the insecurity of temporary accommodation, without addressing the dire lack of generally affordable home, tied to local incomes. We are deeply concerned this bill continues to over centralise a developer led approach that has demonstrably failed to deliver. It undermines the independence of local government, and deprived communities of their state in development.

Local councils, as the backbone of our planning system are not the blockers, they approve the vast majority 86% of applications that come their way. Sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, such as determining which planning functions are delegated, and reducing the objection period for transport projects, shut communities out of decisions that profoundly impact their lives. We must ensure local councils decide which go to committee, making sure communities are heard and represented. Regarding part three of the bill, while the concepts of environmental development plans and naturist levy is noted, -- And I Nature Restoration Fund is noted, there is a lack of substantial funding, we have serious concerns for the changes, and the capacity and resources to effectively monitor and enforce this form.

We also believe this is a missed opportunity for mandating nature friendly development in all new housing, including minimum biodiversity measures, like swift boxes, black -- that boxes, and it also allows protection for irreplaceable habitats, such as precious short streams. We will seek to amend to improve farming viability, through better use of environmental land Rio to future generations to ensure our planning system sustainable, generally affordable, and democratically accountable. Enabling our communities to thrive, and enjoy nature not diminish it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare I am on the boards of Peace for the Planet and I Chair the environment Select Committee, though the members here will be pleased to know I am speaking purely as a backbencher. I'd like to begin by thanking the Minister for responding to the noble Baroness, Baroness
18:21
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
to the noble Baroness, Baroness Taylor, for the time she has given me not just on this bill but the wider issues of housing and planning committees appreciated. I find this bill to be the most exciting legislation in this session, which has been said by someone else. But it is not because it was perfect, far from it, but because it opens a vital and long overdue national debate. It's not just about housing, it's about life, communities, connectivity, places to raise families, work, grieve, make friends, it is a chance to nationally plan land use more strategically, aligning homes within the structure, nature.

And there are three things I wish to raise on this bill. Things that have already been discussed. Planning committees, discovered a poll that said 53% of people do not trust councils to act in their best interest and 59% want more information or greater say in local decisions. And I acknowledge what has been said by the noble Lord the Minister that there is a consultation under way but if the government plans to remove a democratic element of planning, whatever the threshold, it must, in my view, ensure that people still know who makes decisions on what basis, and how we can make their voices heard.

Democracy only works if people are involved, and if you remove that local impact, input, or accountability, you damage the democratic link entirely. I would like us, going forward to explore how we frontload the planning process, using better data, earlier engagement, and a stronger design committee to cure local support for the outset, if you combine that with the passports the government are looking and you reduce the need for repeat committee debate, save time, and provide long-term clarity, then all of this, I believe, is already possible in current legislation.

Second is Natural England. If it is to take on a stronger regulatory role, we must ensure it is transparent and accountable. Who scrutinises its daily decisions? You steps in when something goes wrong? Does it have the right skills as has been said at the right resources and should be the sole delivery body? Third is part three. I looked at it the other day, again, when I was preparing for this, it reminded me when I put things into AI, usually when I am bored and ask it a question, and out pops something which is very clever, but often, or sometimes, lacks human intuition.

And this section of the bill, I do feel, perhaps started with neutrality in mind, and as I said, should have stayed just there. And if you put alongside the broader noise on biodiversity and nature for, I can't help but feel a slight apprehension, perhaps more than that, and growing. And I do feel I'm afraid the section risks undermining protection and creating new problems, when I think we should be surely fixing what is not working first. The fund must be for nature, not in administrative in the bill, it risks becoming a bureaucratic cash cow with too few resources, there is nothing about mitigation hierarchy, no requirement to obey green for structure, and no assurance the funds stay local, maintaining and improving nature is not addressed, they basically pay the levy and the problem is offshore.

Added to which, it only lasts 10 years and what happens then. Some habitats and species cannot just be cut and pasted elsewhere. I hope this bill does spark a deeper national conversation about the kinds of places we want to build another kind of country we want to be. Growth doesn't have to make things worse, on the contrary, it's essential but people must see and feel the benefits, we need to better deliver the infrastructure and services people expect and fix this crazy situation where there are a billion sat there in section 106, waiting to be spent.

And its roots in the of this bill and criticisms in areas must not be mistaken. -- And scrutineers of this bill. Most want more homes and businesses, it is a small planning for some recently I went to Aylesbury, where they have partnered for 2,500 homes and since then, sparrows have risen 4,000%, goldfinches 200% and bees 50%, and all of this, is not just despite Briggs it, it's despite the presence of roads, homes, shops and schools. And all of this was because nature was put in at the very outset.

They are not alone, there are others doing it because nature is not a blocker to growth, it is part of growth, does create jobs, as my noble friends on the front bench knows too well, it helps make healthier and happier communities, so I welcome the government saying this but the rhetoric must change, we must stop framing it as housing and nature as adversaries where one must lose for the other to win and I have spoken to campaigners and young people who care about the environment and yet want more homes and developers, many building upscale who are putting nature and because it works and it's this energy I want us all to channel, not to kill the bill but to improve it, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but push for more measured national and more ambitious plan, delivers for both people and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nature. Thank you. Planning and Infrastructure Bill marks a turning point. An intention has been declared by the government has been declared by the government to pursue a major re-construction of the UK economy. This intention is conveyed by the bill. Many years ago a Labour government was faced with a similar task of post-war reconstruction, and on a purpose of government, under the unassuming government, under the unassuming leadership of Clement Attlee, has faced a task in which the difficulties were widely acknowledged. The government was supported by an able civil servant.

Whether skills often honed by the Whether skills often honed by the wartime contingencies. Overseeing the procurement of wartime material, the procurement of wartime material, it was replete with technicians, and staff, who manage the complex supply staff, who manage the complex supply chain. The ministry oversaw some post-war technological projects including those of the newly established nuclear industry for also oversaw the nationalisation of also oversaw the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry and unequal competence was then mistreated by the Ministry of transport which oversaw the nationalisation of the rail network, nationalisation of the rail network, albeit little credit was given this account.

Thereafter, the Civil account. Thereafter, the Civil Service was rapidly de-skilled, its amateurism was reasserted by means of a Civil Service selection Board. Even by the mid-1960s, critics were complaining of a lack of scientific commercial and manufacturing skills in the Civil Service. Current circumstances are very different to those of the early post-war years. The Department of energy Security
18:29
Viscount Hanworth Portrait Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
-
-
Net Zero, which is charged with Net Zero, which is charged with overseeing our energy policy, has technical expertise and one might expect the department to be expect the department to be dominated by scientists and engineers, but there are a few of these. Those in charge of nuclear policy are graduates with degrees in archaeology, history and other social sciences. And as well, they social sciences. And as well, they can be credited with some -- Supporting nuclear renaissance... This will be necessary for small nuclear pots that come up close and nuclear pots that come up close and personal to industrial applications, and thicknesses of populations.

Reactive -- And two clusters of Reactive -- And two clusters of populations, reactors embody a generations of nuclear technologies that represent inherent safety, and that represent inherent safety, and instead, we are developing reactors on a large-scale and small moderate on a large-scale and small moderate on a large-scale and small moderate reactors, both pose stringent safety requirements which must keep them at a distance from consumers of heat and electricity. We have large projects that have been pursuing fourth-generation nuclear technology in the UK.

Either close or expatriates themselves to more expatriates themselves to more promising and welcoming countries. A ministry staffed by technical enthusiasts would never have allowed this to happen. Commercial experience is striking, in its technological limitations. This has been illustrated by the experience of the HS2 rail project. It seems governments were willing to support the project, not willing to support the project, were content to issue vague plans and rely on the contractors to determine the detail specifications and the governments were declined -- Inclined to make changes without regard to the cost of the resulting organisation.

As the two projects have been affected by a filing system, and local objections Spider-Man for a judicial review, this has severely impeded its process. The planning Bill proposes to reform this system. There is a tendency for nations to have a more forceful regime that can override objections and if we are not prepared to act likewise, then we must resolve to compensate adequately the affected parties. However, in pursuing the construction of new towns if that is what we intend, we must make provision for the couple's repurchase of land, in a way that will allow it enhance value to accrue largely to the public authorities, or to the development corporations.

Otherwise, it will accrue to look a bit undeserving landowners. One final comparison that I wish to make between the past and present. After the war, the nation was fully aware of the pile of state of the economy, under the physical environment. We are less aware nowadays of the hazard we face. Our leaders should have alerted them soon to this reality. The consequence is we will be blamed for each emerging problem, we will be blamed for the failures in the provision of health and, the bankruptcies of local authorities, and of universities, and institutions of higher education and much else besides.

We have been willing to listen, to those responsible for convincing our leadership that it was dangerous at an election time, to admit taxes needed to be raised to finance the reconstruction. This was surely a misreading of popular opinion which made no allowance for the possibilities of political persuasion. The consequence is that we have lost time before embarking on the project and we have lost some
18:31
Lord Offord of Garvel Portrait Lord Offord of Garvel (Conservative)
-
-
It is a pleasure to speak to part one of the bill and chapter 2 which is the structure. This bill introduces many critical reforms of planning and connection systems and, if implemented effectively, could help restore realism and a response to the structural development. I welcome the shift from first-come first-served to the interconnected model of connections and to quote Mike Noble Friend Lord Young of Cookham in theory we should allow shovel ready projects to deliver without unnecessary delays.

However, we are to prioritise projects and we must be strategic. Not all are equal. A kilowatt-hour from a nuclear plant delivered consistently with a wind turbine might not be turning tomorrow. Immediately dispatchable energy dense sources must be prioritised. These technologies provide essential power and enhanced grid stability, crucially they offer inertia, i.e. Resistance to frequency fluctuations, something that went and solar cannot provide. They can cause blackouts, something that we saw first hand in Spain to recently.

We must be cautious about fast tracking small-scale intermittent projects that offer low capacity factors that often involve costly network upgrades. My argument is not against this against imbalance. A truly resilient grid must be cleaner, yes, but also smarter, stronger, and more stable. We should connect the right projects in the right order in the national interest, not just to tick boxes for arbitrary 2030 targets. Broadly we support efforts to streamline the planning process for the National in projects, and these are critical for our energy security and economic competitiveness, and while I welcome the Bills legal framework in the scheme to support long duration storage I would also share caution to my Noble Friend Lord Lilley's comments on pre-empting new technology.

That said, it is vital that we enable technology that has that supply and demand, reinforce it and help us move towards a cleaner energy system. However, I must express my Lords concern about an underlying driving motivation the name of the current Government clean power by 2030 target. We have done so in this House many times before and noble Lords will indulge me once again as it is important to let out reality of the cost of this target. The energy research has pressed the cost to 116 million over the next 10 years and £400 per annum per household and that is before factor in the estimate of 96 billion subsidies over the next five years and an additional £600 per annum per household.

Let's be clear, this 2030 target is ideological, being pursued not by looking at affordability but technology neutrality and energy resilience. I believe it is to satisfy the political agenda and we must prioritise a balanced energy, one that combines innovation with reliability, cost effectiveness and growth with environmental stewardship and must not override Any timeframe. I trust the Noble Lord the Minister has had these concerns and I look forward to hearing these at the later stages of the bill during the committee.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I remind the House that I am the vice president of the Local Government Association and I understand the ambition of the bill understand the ambition of the bill to speed up delivery, planning to speed up delivery, planning frameworks are complex and can be slow. But I remain to Ministers that when the audit commission existed that the audit planning publicised that the audit planning publicised poorly performing councils and required improvements from them. For myself, I accept the need to enforce shorter timescales on decision shorter timescales on decision making.

And I think it is wrong to suggest that they are responsible for not building enough homes. As we have heard, there are well over one million homes with planning million homes with planning permission not built. Councils prove 9/10 planning proposals for housing. 9/10 planning proposals for housing. It is not the planning system which causes low house contributions, it causes low house contributions, it is the lack of money and the lack of is the lack of money and the lack of And the Government still wants to build 1.5 million homes by 2029 and if it was to be done at what quality might it be? And I ask because this bill could be the means of future proofing our housing stock given our ageing population and given we have more people that live with a disability.

Many new homes lack quality and some very poor housing is being produced through the development conversions where profits are the driving force. We need to build more healthy homes. My Noble Friend Earl Russell talked about this and I just want to agree with his conclusions and I do wish that Ministers would stop talking about this, not in this chamber, I should say, but more generally. And it is about 5250 it is about 5251 rare and protected habitats that must not lose their current legal safety net.

In terms of delivering infrastructure, planning reform will help, but many large infrastructure projects in this country have suffered from bad project management and huge cost overruns. It is not just about planning for so the bill include several positive measures, such as making it easier for councils to purchase vacant land for house building in localised planning fees and increase planning capacity of those to be supported, but that national scheme delegation of centralised decision making when there is no evidence that decision making will be improved.

And the democratic role of councillors in decision-making which has been central to the planning system is at risk. Every reform must safeguard local oversight to transparency, otherwise there is a risk that the public will not be supported. And planning reform will only succeed if there are qualified planning staff to do the work. To build capacity, level VII chartered town planner apprenticeships must be expanded. And this time when spending on planning has been reducing. According to the Royal town planning Institute in their excellent roof we have a shortage of over 2,000 planners and local authorities and we do not have enough chief planning officers that has been downgraded over the air.

We think the reason why planning has been difficult because there have not been enough staff necessary to do the work and the necessary clout to drive progress and outcomes and I believe the chief planning officer I believe should be statutory and I have said so the same thing in the passage of previous planning bills. And the audit alongside of the whole planning system. And their proposal that there should be a national spatial framework, I think, would be a positive improvement.

At this stage of our debate on the bill, I think it is true that we have to put think it is true that we have to put competency and accountability at the heart of decision-making. Clause 51, it is too much power to Whitehall. If you train councillors in clause 50 to be better, why do you need to take the power away? Whitehall does not need to be involved in the size of planning committees and planning is not a blocker, it is an under resourced labour and this bill could put that right.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to pick up a couple

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to pick up a couple of points that he has made so evidently. We are going to talk about two things. The relationship between health and planning and health and health. And the second reading is about principles and I wanted to start with what is planning for? And it is too often cast at the moment as an obstacle
18:42
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
cast at the moment as an obstacle and I understand why with the frustrations we have heard already about the major infrastructure projects and to explain to a foreigner why they can't manage those in this country. And the costs and delays in vault in speeding up decision-making more generally and it does not always think like that and it needn't be like that. Planning can be a positive phosphor transformation, for creating places and communities that support health and well-being, prosperity, and the and well-being, prosperity, and the and well-being, prosperity, and the And we must recognise the links between health, prosperity, and the environment.

For example, the healthy environment and workforce is vital to the economies as we have seen in the chronic levels and also my Noble Friend the baroness of summer town has pointed out where the natural environment enhances our health and is vital in cities as well as in the countryside. There is almost nothing in all the various aspects of planning today that addresses health where this looks exclusively almost at healthcare facilities, some increasing on that but nothing yet uncreative health by which I mean creating the conditions for people to be healthy and helping them to be sought which is a pretty good starting point in those places.

We need to recreate that that people have understood in the past. Turning to housing, many noble Lords will know the previous Minister for Health were Ministers for health as well and perhaps it is not surprising that I am about to make an amendment and the responsibility of Government at the moment but there is no need, I suspect, to tell noble Lords about the links between health, mould, damp, cold, heat, accessibility and extraordinary mental stress with the mental health aspects as part of this.

There is also a positive side with if we get housing right then it provides greater stability and a great foundation for life for them to do their homework if the room is too big and allows us to live out through life's changes without having necessarily to move and we need to promote health and well- being and provide a foundation for a healthy and productive life rather than as so many do today in damaging health and feelings of insecurity that are sadly so prevalent today.

The TCP has published showing you a project of some of that was Toms shown today, particularly in this influence and icy nothing in this bill that would address those issues. Some noble Lords would recall introduced a healthy home spill into the last department with healthy home standards into the levelling up with excellent support from his majesties opposition and the Liberal Democrats and hoping that there may be still some one feelings towards these ideas on the now Government side and that they now Government side and that they may still make some progress on that and out of course will look for support elsewhere.

I know the Noble Lady the Minister will point me towards policies and there are some very positive points, although not enough reference to healthy well- being even there, but they are too easily ignored or overruled in the easily ignored or overruled in the People start out the planning with good intentions but in the end, we lose vital aspects. The evidence is all rounders and in the booklet I refer to. By noble friend, Lord Best, described very well the mechanics of how some of this works, but he also pointed to the very positive role development corporations could have in the future and we have many good examples of that, like the Olympic legacy one, to something I hope we will explore.

In conclusion, I want to quote from my great friend, who used to run the Ugandan health service, health is made at home, hospitals are full repairs. Planning can do a great deal to create health, support the new localised NHS agenda I believe we will be having, and help create sustained growth, and I mean sustained growth, growth, and I mean sustained growth, not just a short of growth. But it is what people need to lead

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fulfilling and productive lives. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and I am very glad he noble Lord and I am very glad he mentioned the point about healthy homes. It's just one of the many issues missing from the bill. My issues missing from the bill. My Lords, I like this Bill, I like the ideas, and the principles behind it,
18:47
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
ideas, and the principles behind it, I thank the Minister for the way he introduced it, but I would take issue with one thing, the problems on the planning system. What he didn't mention was the lack of planning officers, and that has been raised by a number of noble Lords. My noble friend, Lord Young of Cookham, mentioned it, the lack of skilled workers, that was mentioned by the noble Lord Camilla Campbell. It is the noble Lord concerned about the lack of planning officers, there has been such a huge decline in the last 10 years.

These are going to be absolutely key people in the transformation the government wish to see happen. Milos, I am not the only noble Lord to be very struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best. And I hope that the government do pay attention to that speech and listen. And take action on it. It is far too easy for the government to say they listen but it is actually time they acted on the listening. My Lords, I welcome clause 32 of this bill, and I welcome the ring fencing of planning fees.

Of course, we all need some new development, but we also need nature with the new development I was very saddened by the speech the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who went to the old chestnut of nutrient neutrality for the excuse of not building new houses. That is a housebuilders old chestnut and is nonsense. I will give the example perhaps of the Hampshire Haven who have had enough manner now for 10 years of housebuilding, and that is a very precious area.

-- Enough land now. I thought the noble Baroness was absolutely right in what she said about the best opportunity of this bill, to make all development more nature friendly, there is a huge opportunity here for the government to turn the dial for a position that would be really beneficial. It is healthy homes it is good nature, natural development that new housing can take advantage of, and we can get a better design and a better quality of housing as a result.

Let me turn to my main concern which is part three of the bill. The more that I have learnt about this bill and the more people I have talked to, the more I have decided part three has been made upon the hoof. It is a good idea, but has been totally overshadowed and destroyed by the Civil Service, my Lords. The government, not surprising, are taking a very statist approach to nature. And I giving more pass to Natural England. My Lords, I would advise them against that.

Natural England have a poor record on protecting nature. They lack effectiveness and efficiency. A lot of people have said that. I am waiting and still waiting for two months to get a reply on the chief executives of Natural England. My Lords, in recent evidence reviews, they have ignored up-to-date scientific evidence which is contrary to their own thoughts. My Lords, the funding of Natural England is a concern. But it's even more of a concern when it comes to EDPs and naturist levy.

As Tony Juniper has told us, that is a pipeline of money, how are Natural England going to do a job when they have got an unpredictable supply of , I hope the Minister will confirm the private sector are still going to be involved. That there is a huge amount the private sector have done that can help in the development of nature. And in particular, of chalk streams. I'm glad The Right Reverend Prelate is back in his face, he mentioned chalk streams and I will support him all the way on that, my final plea to the Minister is, please, can we clarify all these overlapping policies, spatial policies, net gain requirements, new grain, belt plans, regulations, 25 year farming roadmap, Environmental Improvement Plan, and local nature recovery strategies and how we are recovery strategies and how we are going to link that in with EDPs.
18:52
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl and I am having a sense of dej vu, thinking back to when they noble Earl and I were working on getting a focus on soil health in the environment Bill, now act, when the noble Earl was indeed acting to push his own government in the right direction. I declare my position as vice president of the local government Association, I'm writing to speak as the first member of the Green group in your Lordships house speaking, so I do have to note that in the other place, the Green MPs voted against this bill at third reading.

That is not because they didn't think there were good elements in it, but there's so much damage being done to nature and hence, as many noble Lords have said, the health and well-being, to the state of the nation, that they could not support the progress of the bill, so I thought it was important to set up that position we start from. And I think in the noble Lord, the Minister's, introductory speech, we heard a couple of the central misconceptions that underpin the reasons why the government's approach more generally in this bill are simply not going to work.

It is going to be counter-productive. The noble Lord spoke with some glee about new roads. Well, we know that new roads simply create new traffic, you cannot build your way out of traffic jams all you do is create more traffic jams. At the noble Lord spoke about safe and decent homes this bill was supposed to be going to deliver. As the noble Lord Crisp , what our large handful of builders are building is anything but that, and if people haven't seen it, I point them to the article in The New Statesman this month, about some of the absolutely awful and incredibly expensive homes that have been built in the prime ministers own constituency, that the owners are not being able to get sorted out.

And I think, I'm picking up points made by the noble Lady, Baroness Willis, and many others, the health of nature is the health of human beings. We human animals living on this fragile planet in this terribly nature depleted country. Speaking up for nature is speaking up for humans, even a noble Lord Crisp just said, if we are going to have a healthy economy, we need healthy humans, we are speaking up for the economy ultimately. This bill is a disastrous for nature.

I would go to the wildlife and countryside Link but there are any briefings pointing out how it undermines vital legal out how it undermines vital legal protections for nature. It is environmentally progressive bill. I could take the rest of my time doing simply a very long list of all the issues I want to address, but that would be a little bit dull. I'm going to focus on a couple of points that I think help illustrate my general point that nature and human well-being are tied together.

We need to take A1 health approach to this bill. I point to a briefing from the Sustainable Nitrogen Alliance which sees the environmental delivery plans will be environmental delivery plans will be insufficient to tackle nitrogen overloading, we need an integrated approach to nitrogen pollution that addresses, in addition to development, the impacts of intensive agriculture and wastewater and the risk of pollution swapping. And coming back to my point about health, I go to the UNA P, which notes that ammonia emissions, as well as contributing to climate change, are an important driver of particular matter pollution, which reduces air quality and has increasing adverse effects on human health.

Now, I actually spent last weekend with my, in my leisure times, two days course with the Field studies Council introduction to lichens. And I can highly recommend that a noble Lords, and any noble Lords who are in the dining room and find themselves bailed up for me to talk about that more, but it was striking how much they kept saying you won't find this wonderful species all that wonderful species here, everything is covered in nitrogen. And that is what our country is like.

And that is a human health issue as well as an issue for lichens. I do want to briefly mention any other place, it was talked about the rights to grow, that is really crucial for human health and also allotments and similar spaces that are great for nature as well. I'm going to mention the issue financial, historic and current, given the health impacts of that, and Zayn's law is something noble Lords will be hearing more from me on. But I want to mention something that might be able to be cleaned up now before that point.

The Badger trust points out in schedule six, there are amendments that significantly undermine protections for badgers without improving the situation for housebuilders. I hope we might be able to clean it up before committee stage, so we won't have to go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through that detail. This is a bill I strongly support, I want it to work but I think it would be a waste of time. think it would be a waste of time. That sounds harsh but it need not be. As I said in the King's Speech be. As I said in the King's Speech last year on 18 July, I have been reformed in planning reform before reformed in planning reform before as a minister more than once. My radical suggestion of a 30 month
18:58
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
-
radical suggestion of a 30 month period of no regulation, other than building control, has clearly not been taken up. Far too bold. But unless ministers can remove the walls around departmental silos, it will be a waste of time. New Labour was not perfect, but I was involved in the New Labour more than once, in clear major work across the departments, outside of the silos, it can be made to happen. Currently it's not happening. I've been a meeting with developers, industrial builders, energy providers in the last months, where the issue was getting action across departments.

No give and take, examples of all or nothing from departments, and in some cases, it's been nothing. Jobs lost, companies lost. Nobody seems in overall control. Number Ten is the issue. We have a good government, but I think it's a clumsy government. The bill will not work, if a at the top it is a bit of finger, lumbering and stiff. -- It is butter fingered. Believe it not, I'm going back in a bit of history, the one-stop management playbook.

When it took GEC from a tiny company of £100 million to a manufacturing company of £11 billion. Selling power plants to China, locomotives to the USA. It did not allow silos to exist in the subsidiaries. It cut to exist in the subsidiaries. It cut out the chaff. It did not get sidetracked by consortiums or third parties, it can be made to work. I support the bill, I read the briefs from at least 10 organisations, the National Trust, the Royal town planning Institute, The Role Planning Association, The Local Councils, the CLA, NFU, All Claiming to Support the Bill.

But, There Is Always but. Some Contain Good People I Am Happy to Work with, Indeed tomorrow morning would be a good example, collectively, with third parties, aided by the two regulators, Natural England and the Environment Agency, they are the reason so little progress has been made over the years. That sums it up collectively, they have been the problem. And they sidetrack the clumsy government we have got. The government needs to embrace boldness as its friend really. Not as its enemy. Once Number Ten is clearly in charge with a plan to stop and get rid of the silos, ministers should be made to work across department.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As they say, follow that. Lord Rooker, always trenchant, given with verve and determination and I do verve and determination and I do want to pick up if I may on his want to pick up if I may on his issue on departmental silos. I want to make a strategic point and a to make a strategic point and a tactical point. I will deal with strategic first. There's is an ambitious plan, 1.5 million homes
19:01
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
ambitious plan, 1.5 million homes while meeting clean power targets and at the same time making sure we have an adequate degree of nature recovery as mentioned by Lord Goldsmith. It does not deal with the point made by Lord Lilley. Over the next 10 years we will have 6.6 million people in this country more and it is a huge number. It is twice the size of Manchester and Manchester covers the area roughly the size of Berkshire and this is going to have some substantial consequences.

I am concerned some of them may be unintended. In the short-term I have available, I want to draw the houses attention to just one and that is that there is a growing danger, a growing risk, to our food and water security. When the bill comes into effect, there will be agricultural land taken out of food production. Partially obviously because we must build houses and facilities that go with it, but also less obviously but also very important there will be massive amounts of agricultural land to solar farms.

Not just solar farms, but the production of maize for feeding those which is part of the electricity, part of the push for green energy targets. It is obvious that you cannot eat solar panels so when the Minister comes to windup, perhaps I could ask the noble Lord to pass this on, could you tell the House how many acres of agricultural land are expected to be taken out of production as a result of the implications of this bill? How the government squares this with the conclusion of its own national security review and concludes as headlined in the times that the risk of war on home soil is now the greatest in years.

People tend to forget that we only grow just over half our food, about 55%, and we must go to the world market to buy the balance. It is not just a question of buying the food, but shipping it here. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the impact of pinch points, four or five, show how vulnerable we are to world events and we are not as an island and an already crowded island are particularly vulnerable to these shifts. In the early 1940s, this country was within a few months of starvation until the Royal Navy was able to crack the threats to the economies.

Today the threats are economies. Today the threats are much shorter. As is mentioned again in the national security view, supply chains are very, very thin, and it is anticipated, estimated, there are three days of food supply for this country in the foodchain at anyone time and as someone put it rather dramatically we are nine meals away from anarchy. If the situation with regards to water as mentioned by Baroness Coffey is no better. If the prime task of the government is to protect citizens and keep them safe, it must include and provide adequate supplies of food and water.

This does not come into this debate because the point made by Lord Rooker it falls into another silo and it is important that those silos interconnect, communicate and make sure the implications are read into the conclusions and qualities of the other. I want to turn to my tactical point and I want to interrogate them. I declare in interest as a member of the Ramblers. The UK network of footpaths is there to play a big role in giving people exercise, and improve physical and mental well-being.

There are 40,000 miles of footpath under it and under the drop dead date of the countryside and right to roam act 2000 will disappear on 31st December of this year, gone forever. The last Conservative government gave an extension. They will disappear on the 31st of December 2013. The Labour government in coming and said we should remove the whole of the drop dead date and sort it out over time. Now we have parliamentary time so I hope the Minister will welcome some amendments to this very important one that the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has given us. I thought I would be the only person that mentioned recreation and person that mentioned recreation and sport in this bill. He has basically stepped timidly on the territory of
19:07
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
stepped timidly on the territory of footpath. The removal of consultees is something I have found rather worrying. Sport England disappearing as a consultees is something I found very worrying. The fact we will do away with the system and remove the roadblock without something that defence playing fields. -- Defends playing fields. I cover sport and I play sport. If I have to declare my interest as my career as a rugby league player, it is a strongly financially negative one.

Not positive for physiotherapists or manufacturers of rugby boots, but the rest of it is distinct he never -- distinctly negative. Playing fields allow the sport to happen. The little club I started with played the first 10-15 years of his career totally on school playing fields for his home games. He has gone on to be something bigger, developed and gone through. But we don't have that statutory defence any more. Now it says that, the ultimate plan, dyslexia comes into it, I should have declared that in the question earlier, but you are removing the people who look at this.

You have not got that defence in place any more. You talk about Lord Brooker -- Raqqa not being cleverer. Did we not here yesterday a minister saying that we need more sports, better choice for school sports, better choice for school education, people getting out to try things. You cannot do things like that if you don't have playing fields. You just can't. It is a benefit for health, community, everything else. I would hope that at the end of this process and it depends on how much I bother the Committee stage and report of this how soon I get the answer, you can get rid of parliamentary time by giving me a nice answer.

If we get some consideration and something solid here to defend community assets and on the briefing if something is no longer needed, you have got some green open space you play sport on, how can that possibly be not needed? It is ultimately reusable. Many times over. The way you can do it is make sure you don't have any changing rooms, but it takes a bit of investment. There is enough local government experience in this room to know that I'm telling the truth.

If we are not going to look after these bits to make sure that the communities we are building around have some assets to make them communities, we will ultimately fail. Unless we look at these details, the houses that go through and the reference was made through to Billy Connolly being moved out of Glasgow, it is very funny, you move someone out of somewhere and say you are out of a slump but you live in a desert, school playing fields and schools and parks and everything else are a key component of allowing these things to happen.

Please make sure they are protected and protected properly. If you are going to get rid of them, make sure you put something much better in their place. If these little details that turn things from being successes to failures, I hope the government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listening. I declare an interest as a practising planning silk with a practising planning silk with a range of clients and secondly as chair of advisory Committee and
19:11
Lord Banner Portrait Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
chair of advisory Committee and director of Crossman special project. Thirdly on clause 12 it proposes to give legal effect to those recommendations of my independent view of legal challenges to nationally significant infrastructure projects that require primary legislation. There is much to be welcomed in this bill particularly in one and two and it is a step in the right direction. I do think there are some missed opportunities and I hope the government will listen to constructive proposals to improve it and thereby further help its purpose of making the planning regime more efficient to deliver the housing growth this country desperately needs.

I endorse the streamlining and a clause 12 streamlining procedure for the judicial review to cut down on delays caused by legal challenges. That is the recommendation that it requires primary legislation to implement. The other recommendation is for civil procedure rules governed by the Committee and I welcome clarification from the Minister regarding the anticipated timescale between planting those other changes and recommendations were brought forward as an overall package and I want to know when it would be delivered.

I welcome clarification for the changes to the CPR to be made only in relation to infrastructure of judicial reviews or judicial and statutory reviews and planning generally, but I see merit by many others as they cover planning reviews more generally. The reintroduction of strategic planning is a more positive step. Previous experiments failed to appreciate that in the world of planning the reliance of carrots without any sticks is always ineffective. Strategic direction is essential to make a dent in the massive shortfall nationwide in market and affordable housing.

I do not share the view of some of those on this side of the House that rural areas should be exempt of their fair share of delivery. My experience promotes and opposes housing in that darn well housing in rural areas can provide a necessary and welcome boost to the local economies, pubs, post offices, schools, and without that they will wither away and die. In the limited time I have I would like to announce the improvements to the bill. Expressing general principle of proportionality in planning giving decision-makers, applicants, consultants reassurance that less can be more and look at the days of them being delivered in lorries and the examining expect asking 2000 questions about a single project which are examples of default relic city that only clogs up the system and causes delay.

Basic conditions of the neighbouring plans. currently they don't have to conform. They can say having done it they don't have to move forward and this presents a significant loophole to drive the strategic direction. Well resourced parish councils in the areas of greatest unaffordability can unilaterally pull up the ladder contrary to national policy and there would be no grey belt or by restricting development to less than is required by national policy. This is what will happen if basic conditions stay as they are.

Single sentence amendments put paid to this
19:18
19:23
19:29
19:33
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
And And probably And probably now And probably now lining And probably now lining up And probably now lining up to And probably now lining up to pay for the next election campaign. The for the next election campaign. The trash for catch Cash Out brooch will trash for catch Cash Out brooch will be a disaster for nature and human health and must be thrown out. health and must be thrown out.

Investors to pay money to reduce Investors to pay money to reduce natural wealth. The Greens argue we want the round houses at the right place at the right place. The place at the right place. The government is giving us the wrong House in the wrong place with whatever developer profit they feel they can charge in order to boost private profits. I find section 3 of the bill absolutely shocking. The Chancellor declared the developers will not have to worry about wildlife any more.

It is a straightforward betrayal of the promises of targeting 30% of land and sea, nature by 2030, and those improvements to habitats and biodiversity are not simply going to happen under this government if it passes these laws. I do not understand why government objects to good ideas and projects good amendments. If we look at Swift bricks, a brutally simple idea adding only a few pennies onto any new build stop why does the government objects? Why don't you stop objecting to any amendment that isn't yours, make it yours and just do it.

The Prime Minister declared war on lockers and zealots. If we look at them, there are tree-huggers look at them, there are tree-huggers like me but one voice in my local planning system, I do not live in Devon, Shropshire, Northumberland, Norfolk or those areas around the country who are full of zealots that the Prime Minister does not like. The truth is the Prime Minister zealots are ordinary local people stand up and object when a local woodland is threatened or a river is being polluted by an intensive chicken farm.

Those people use existing planning systems to fight big developers. They try to compete with builders who have expensive lawyers and political access. This government is promising as affordable housing but it is a very misleading term. It happens in long debates in the London Assembly about what affordable means and what it is for a House. When the government talks about millions for affordable housing, it is a subsidy for developers to build the same houses that seldom reduce rate.

They get on the housing ladder but at the expense of the taxpayer. What we need to do is enable councils to build social housing again, says, secure, well insulative housing would solve a lot of social problems and economic problems. Schools where pupils and parents can afford to feed them because energy bills are, for the NHS with fewer patients sick from malnutrition or from freezing or badly insulated flats, the jobs market where they will be well educated healthy people to employ. If the government wants green, this is where we try to be nice, so listen carefully.

If the government would want Greens and majority of noble Lords to support the bill, give us guarantees that the current projections for irreplaceable habitats will not be up for negotiation and the environmental development plans will include an implementation schedule enforced by Natural England if we have to have them subject to judicial review. Give us a bill which makes Social Housing Act a priority and give affordable rent. Give us a bill that reduces pollution by reducing the right to developers to connect new housing with a sewage system.

It would be really worth voting for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to point you to my registered interest, and I'm set up to provide social and key worker housing and understandably I'm housing and understandably I'm concerned about supporting any measures that encourage the quantity of quality housing if a large
19:37
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
of quality housing if a large proportion of that is social how. I welcome this period in which it has been launched. In delivering 2.5 million homes since 2010, but there are serious concerns of the bill I have to highlight and I question it is possible to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament as the government promised. This is designed to streamline planning and infrastructure delivering and homes as well, but in doing so takes away powers from local councillors by reducing the strength of planning permission through the proposed section 51 national scheme of delegation under which it would be specified at national level which planning decisions will be decided on by officers and by planning committees.

As a shadow secretary Jr for housing in other place, if this bill passes in present form, residents will feel disappointed and disenfranchised when they raise concerns to the elected councillors about proposed development. I believe this will break some social contract we have if local people feel helpless around development and lead to less acceptance of new housing. Does the Minister agree? London councils share this concern, stating councillors must retain the ability to scrutinise and influence certain developments especially where there is significant local concern.

The role of councillors is further diminished in clause 93 of the bill which would amend existing legislation to increase the flexibility and use of development corporations. I want to be clear that development corporations can be a very good thing. Particularly in the provision of new towns, I believe they will be necessary in order to deliver new towns, but in London we have seen the best and worst and development Corporation delivered what was largely considered to be a good thing and it's housing still coming forward, but if you look in the West End whether Merrin London has done for the developing Corporation, many local people think they are riding roughshod over their plans they had with the Labour led council to deliver pedestrianisation of Oxford Street and if we are going to have development corporations, we need to what type of corporations and flexibility they will be given above and beyond the ones we already realise.

London councils are also right to note that the planning system is not the main barrier to deliver new homes and infrastructure here in London. London has a healthy pipeline of nearly 300,000 homes that had been approved by council planning departments. This is enough to meet future housing targets more than three times over, but these schemes are not for development due to viability issues. Viability in a place is a real problem. While some measures in planning reform will help plan reform...

While some of the measures will help plan reform, I hope they deliver their 1.5 million homes and I personally through my role here and in the GLA will do my best to help, but this planning bill could be a boom to that or a missed opportunity and is the detail around things such as the level of social housing we can expect and what we will deal with develop and corporations that will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be vital. Before speaking I declare my interest in the agenda. I am a
19:41
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
interest in the agenda. I am a farmer and landowner and until last year I was chairman of the local enterprise partnership and I've been involved in heritage organisations for much of my life. 40 years ago, it was my own surprise and in retrospect now I shared the Lake District planning Board development control Committee and at that time I began to wonder if local authority membership would be the right basis for the quasi-judicial function for determining planning applications. I came to the conclusion that boards might be better.

I welcome the idea a mandatory education for planning committees. Local knowledge and views matter, but they are not the only consideration in determining applications. Planning officers on their own in the real world cannot always deflect these soon -- tsuami. We want to get it without resorting to appeal. Somewhat analogy sleeve the belief I have that perhaps the most important thing I learned from reading for the bar was to avoid litigation as much as you possibly can. Given the overriding requirement behind the bill and the points made in this debate, it seems to me to be a very good case for accountable development corporations and special regimes for national infrastructure.

As Lord Lansley said, the devil lies the detail and they must be transparent and accountable. In such cases, deliberations of all planning matters must be taken into account. Listed buildings remain listed even if specific listing building concerns may not be required. The changing of running processes should not affect the planning or evidential significance for heritage, nature or environmental considerations. These are in their own way important to our national economy and the character of the country of which we live and the heart of contemporary ideas about place and it's generally recognised the importance of that to the wider economy.

It is important that you land use dollar see in implementation is not hijacked by the public sector to promote aspiration that the expense of the small man and local concerns are not directly measurable in their economic terms and considerations. It seems there is a temptation which sometimes cannot be resisted that the public sector sees the process the public sector sees the process of authorisation as kind of a bulldozer to get its own way and take forward its own agenda and I'm sure we can think of instances where this may be happening.

While charging for planning applications may seem out of kilter and in the basis of landlord and the planning system is the presumption you can do what you want with your own land unless there is a good reason not to which is to look at planning policy. In reality, this approach hardly seems realistic in the world we live, but these challenges should not be greater than prior art if the authority concerned is in effect. -- Priority. If you won a planning appeal you shouldn't get the money back.

We have heard considerable scepticism expressed by the mechanism of part three of the bill. I echo them. Speaking of the prospective of a Cumbrian farmer and landowner, the current arrangements are all over the place. Someone wanting to take forward these things, it is impossible to know what they have got to do. The parallel public-private regimes make no real sense and much of the money being talked about in this context does not seem to exist. Unless matters are sharpened up, much of this will be shown to be whatever the collective word is for paper tigers.

Planning is crucial and we needed in this country because it is a form of estate management for the nation as a whole based on the country's desperate needs to be balanced out between. In that way balanced out between. In that way It's a limitation on the ground depends on money which is why the implementation of much what we are talking about depends entirely on the government's economic policy. Clearly the country is in a mess. If good policies prevail, that will be for the good.

But the impact of some, current policies, would inhibit growth, and they will have a damaging impact. The state of the economy is crucial. How planning policies work out depends on landowners, developers and those running and carrying out planning function, working together. Levelling up is a response to a failure in this regard, the North of England, there is still much more to be done. IC good luck to them but I sense they may need it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a trustee of the foothill estate in
19:47
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
trustee of the foothill estate in Wiltshire. And thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing this bill today. Everybody recognises bill today. Everybody recognises that we have to get more new houses built. Although the failure of all governments in recent years to control both legal and illegal migration have clearly exacerbated shortage. However, in my view, the bill goes to far in removing councillors powers to vote on local planning applications. Does the Minister really think that the central government knows better than local councils when it comes to decisions on which proposed developments will improve their communities and which will be harmful, and ought to be refused? This will be damaging to local democracy and will discourage talented people from seeking election as councillors because they will be allowed to do less than they are present.

Can the Minister tell the House how the proposed scheme of delegation is going to work? And how the government is going to demarcate those decisions which are to be taken by civil servants from those which will be left to local planning committees? Surely such important details as these should be on the face of the bill. On the other hand, there are areas where the government could provide much more encouragement to housebuilders. By removing legacy EU habitat relations, which offer a ridiculous amount of protection to bats for example and other the legacy redtape which both the last government and this would have been too slow to abolish.

Noble Lords may remember that during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, some of us worked hard across the House to obtain a consensus for providing a separate unrecognised status and level of protection for Britain's wonderful talk streams. My noble friend Lord Benyon at that time introduced a government amendment which achieved that. It is deeply disappointing that in Committee in another place, Labour MPs voted against amendment 148 to this bill, which would have mirrored the levelling up act by providing equivalent and necessary production to chalk streams in this bill.

Would the Minister commit to introducing a government amendment to replicate the protection afforded to talk streams in that act? I would also question whether government is proposing building in rural areas rather than urban ones, nearer most of the jobs, and where new houses are most needed. I would also ask the noble Lord the Minister to explain why the government has decided to remove hope value from the value that it places upon land being compulsorily purchased from farmers and landowners. It seems particularly unfair to farmers who have already suffered enough from cuts to agricultural subsidies and changes to NICs, especially when the purpose of compulsory purpose is to develop the land for infrastructure.

Currently local authorities can purchase land compulsorily and then pass it to parish councils. Purposes, including building affordable. The Bill as drafted stops hope value applying to this power, if it is used to deliver affordable. Removal of hopefully would also apply to the lost payments which are additional payments based on the properties value designed to cover the cost and emotional burden of having to move out of and replace the property. In general, I would accept that measures in the bill are in line with the Labour Party's pledges for planning reform but miss the opportunity for an enhanced recognition of rural areas within National Planning Policy, particularly regarding the rural economy and rural housing.

As the CLA has pointed out, the National Planning Policy Framework does not acknowledge the differences between the sustainability which ensures of a rural area versus an urban area. This negatively impacts decision- making for proposals in rural areas. The Bill introduces new environmental delivery plans, EDPS. They will set out how damaged a protected species or features a protected site which are likely to be negative affected by the development, may be mitigated. I would worry about the expensive powers being extended to Natural England.

Including whether they are appropriately skilled or resourced to handle this extra responsibility. What does the noble Lord the Minister think about this, and in particular, does he really think it's proportionate to provide Natural England with compulsory purchase process to deliver the EDPS? Lastly, I look forward to hearing the Minister's winding up speech, and in particular I hope he will answer my noble friend 's question as to the number of acres being taken out of cultural production for solar and schemes.

-- Solo schemes.
19:52
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm pleased to start off with my interests because they are to do with energy, battery storage, but I will talk about long-term storage in a minute. I also chair and director of a number of smaller land developers but I'm chair of the nature partnerships I stand on both sides of a counter where this argument at this bill looks at those conflicts. And I have to say, wearing those two cats, I have never had a conflict-of-interest.

There has never been a situation in all development that we have been involved in, medium-sized, often mixed, not always a lot of housing, not infrastructure, I agree, where nature has got in the way of us in terms of development. It's primarily around planning resources at local authorities. I welcome in many parts of this bill, particularly everything that will enable us to achieve net zero, really, really important that we manage that in terms of energy infrastructure. I also welcome the housing objectives this government has.

But many have said, and my noble friend Lord Shipley in particular, it's not the, the problem is not planning. One of the things that opened my eyes on housing sometime ago is looking at the time series of housing starts since the Second World War. Some time ago now, but there is a complete break at around the beginning of the 1980s. Until that point, the number of private starts was pretty equal to the number of public starts.

There were roughly 150,000 each through that period. When the Thatcher government came in and effectively banned local authority housing, that fell after more or less 0. -- That fell off to The private sector carried along on the same level. Whatever the stimulus was, whatever the markets was, the Folio actually stayed the same and I think there was a real message behind that in terms of the difficulty of stimulating private housing finishes and is not necessarily the planning system. Some of the other areas I really welcome in this bill, one is the long-term storage, I'm not involved in that commercially, the cap and floor and Izium, let's get on with that.

It's important for good stability -- cap and floor mechanism. I welcome the TV -- TV changes in this bill but let's enhance them further exactly as she has said. -- The TV changes. I welcome the financial compensation, trying to get people involved in the energy transition. The one thing actually which no one has mentioned is close 28, the Forestry Commission is close 28, the Forestry Commission which is allowed to indulge in renewable energy itself, which sounds great, but it doesn't mention about -natural, bio natural trees or in terms of energy production.

I would be concerned if that pass for them to be able to work in that area enables them to use their own looks commercially to make up any government funding reductions in terms of cannibalising their own crops -- their own logs. I'd be interested to see what the Minister says on that. My concerns are around the delivery and the environmental delivery plans. This is not something that we are imagining. Sure, we are in nature depletion, restrictions we have had in nature have not been good enough so far but to me this makes them worse and the OEP which has been mentioned, their letter to the Secretary of State, makes it very clear this is a regression.

The thing that worries me is not just this, the fact this bill is a regression but if the government does not take notice of the OEP, then I think in terms of its reputation and its absolutely core function in terms of Parliament and government, I think it's a real problem. It is really important, as I think Minister Penny Koko said, that we find a way that the OEP and the matter is that it has brought up are actually solved in this bill on the way through.

That is crucial. Otherwise, we have an important government agency that loses respect. Lastly, and I have come to the end, I want to talk about Local Nature Recovery Strategies. There mentioned twice in the bill, once very positively in terms of Spatial Development Strategies, but when it comes to EDPS, then they have very weak enforcement in terms of how they are taken into account and that must be changed. It has to be compulsory that Local Nature Recovery Strategies are fully taken into account in terms of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

environmental development plans. My Lords, I begin by declaring the interest, a director of a family company that holds little farmland company that holds little farmland and has occasionally done small- scale development and I'm also the scale development and I'm also the recipient of three party one assist in the three years. We recognise the
19:58
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
in the three years. We recognise the need for more homes. And while the bill aims to speed up the process for building houses, like other lords, I am concerned about the damage that it may do. This bill flouts labour's manifesto promises to uphold local communities ability to shape housebuilding in their area and their pledge to preserve environmental protection as well as being an attack on human rights. There are other ways to do this. As other noble Lords have said, there are some landbank plots currently being held by the big house developers, with eight of the major companies holding land in excess, valued around £198 million.

This government states it wants to build one point million homes, so will they please refuse to give the big companies more planning permission until they develop what they have already got? This government steps to weaken the Green Belt very concerning, surely we must use brownfield sites first, the briefing said that existing brownfield sites can deliver 1.2 deliver 1.2 million houses. Alliances need to be given to given up these brownfield sites, because once our lovely countryside because once our lovely countryside has been concreted over, we will never get it back.

Green spaces are so important for good mental health. We are the custodians of the beautiful country and we must reserve it. Demolishing buildings reserve it. Demolishing buildings needs to further climate secondary give tax breaks for reprocessing buildings for housing and stopping councils allowing so many buildings to be torn down? It's not as we have ready heard, it's not just about quantity but quality. I welcome the good intentions to build better, smarter and vibrantly friendly, but in reality, I worry that this bill will help build the storms of the future and agree with the discussions in the other place that sought to ensure we preserve the setting and special character of historical villages, rather than losing them in an unchecked school.

We need smaller months with local stones, in keeping with the areas, that will boost local businesses by allowing small development of local builders. One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights, and we must resist at all costs authoritarian tendencies to wish to remove these. In this bill, a provision to make compulsory purchase order easier for local authorities to be able to seize land cheaply where it is required for new development, compulsory purchase, seizing someone poverty is against human rights and should only be used in the most No one should be allowed to interfere with the 16 housing or undermine the foundations of an existing property without owners permission.

People need to be reassured their home is safe in line with the ECHR. Government needs to be joined up and I turn to wider issues around infrastructure. In the current climate of growing uncertainty we see our defence policy pivoting to defend deterrence against possible war. Defence is the first priority, surely our second should be food security. I know the noble Lord Hodgson has already made this point, but plastering the countryside and the productive agricultural land with plastic solar panels is a terrible mistake.

The National Security Strategy tells us that we must actively prepare for war. Our land is needed for food production. We import 40% of our food and we need to be more self- sufficient and resilient. More new houses should have electricity generating panels and roll them out on commercial and industrial buildings. Will the government commit to putting solar panels on all its buildings? I would like to share with you and example of what a solar farm, of land under threat from such a development, a massive project in the Wiltshire countryside on good agricultural land.

It threatens 2000s 200 acres with solar panels, 45 acres of batteries, three new electricity substations, £1 million and a two year construction period involving thousands of lorries thundering up tiny lanes taking in six villages and stretches eight by three miles across with compulsory purchase being threatened to access the site. The proposed installation will be in place for 60 years. I would be interested if the Minister could clarify if and why a non- UK firm would have the right to compulsory purchase UK land.

Projects not only cause misery to those affected in war they make easy targets in this area of cyber conflict and drains and we have already seen what can happen with the recent electricity outage in Spain and Portugal. We need to use existing buildings, brownfield sites, existing planning permissions for we eat into our beautiful countryside. Solar panels on routes and not agricultural land and as a democracy we must preserve our property rights. property rights.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am glad I am following the noble Baroness. The latter part of the speech I disagree with. Less than 1% of agricultural land will be taken over by solar farms and similar sites. We need compulsory similar sites. We need compulsory purchase to deliver some of our
20:04
Lord Whitty Portrait Lord Whitty (Labour)
-
-
purchase to deliver some of our energy system and therefore I disagree with the latter part of the speech, but I do agree in terms of local control of housing development, and other aspects of planning, I'm going to scrap it and what I agree within the bill, but I'm going to make a an appeal to the Frontbench and their colleagues to not repeat blockers and builders and give credence to saloon bar chart of frogs and news preventing useful development.

It wasn't frogs and newts. That made a mess of a national infrastructure project of HS2, nor is it frogs or newts or spiders. They are not preventing us achieving a housebuilding target. I approve of the provisions in this that provide easier access for national structures, national infrastructure, I approve of the energy and grid connections, and I approve of the EV charging bits, and I approve of the elected city storage. But I am GBS about much of the rest of the bill.

-- Dubious. Let me say something in defence of planners. A planning system is often too slow and is under resourced and there are bits of the bill that attempts to address under resourcing and recruitment of planners. Much of the planning since the 1940s, we would not have had urban sprawl. We would have had modern slums and less protection from natural resources and natural features. But it has its inadequacies and we have to address those inadequacies.

That does not mean we should dismantle the planning system or make it more susceptible to the pressure. The failures of the housebuilding targets under successive government as Lord Best said earlier have nothing to do with the planning system itself. It has proved well over 80% of plans for housing and when there is an appeal against less when there is an appeal against less than 3% of those appeals being upheld by the appeals system. It is not the planning system preventing housebuilding, it is the legal speak nature of the large House builders and where they have squeezed out competition that used to be there with family building firms and the lack of purchasing power for national and public bodies.

This is what we need to address if we stand any chance of meeting our targets on housebuilding is not to attack planners. I think another aspects I would say on the bill, a couple of others, the government in a current strategy have written in to the Net Zero Strategy. It is not written Zero Strategy. It is not written into this bill. The contributions tackles climate change and slow skirt down climate change and offsets climate change and that is the protection of the countryside and of biodiversity and reversing of biodiversity loss we have so tragically experienced in this country over recent decades.

That contribute to tackling climate change and must be more explicit in the bill. The effect of climate change and the need to adapt to climate change needs to be put into the bill and why is it not in provision are not building the flood and not pre-empting much of the improvement in the water supply that we need to make. It is slightly rambling and different from what I intended to say, but what I intended to say has been there, but the most important message to my noble friends is.

Regarding the planning system as blockers, they are enablers of a better life.
20:10
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow Lord Whitty who I enjoyed my time on the environment Committee in his company. I delighted that policy is shifting and we want more bats. As Lord Whitty said bats are not the problem when it comes to planning and members of an organisation that can build houses, we should realise that. We encourage the them to take their ideas further. There is scope for trusted partners to work alongside the government to achieve what they are hoping to do with many farmers groups in position to work on that sort of thing.

I think to rule them out as the bill does currently is missing an opportunity. currently is missing an opportunity. What the government is doing on throwing into biodiversity net gain, UR asking people to commit to 30 years. It was a policy which evolved with support across the House and now the government after 30 months of the policy is throwing everything into doubt. Those people got themselves organised and if they made a huge mistake and if they get around to sorting their ideas out, they will have lost confidence.

I think the government needs to understand having trusted partners in the private sector to deliver what it wants is a plus to put themselves in a position where partners can believe that the government, any government that follows it will support them through the longer term commitments which this government and the previous government are expecting. I hope to persuade the government to accelerate its working biodiversity data. We have a rich and capable set in the local environment record in the local environment record centres, a lot of effort, but a lot of biodiversity data is created through the planning system is not captured and a lot of them go through without using the data we have.

We need a better structure. I know the government is working on those things and I hope to see that brought forward rather than wait for brought forward rather than wait for a future occasion. I hope we can take an interest in those things that allow noise to be made on the settlements we already have and the other Private Members' Bill on development rights and we should look at things without readjustment schemes and the London system of accessibility and various uses of design codes to make easy for developers to know what was permitted rather than leaving it as an uncertainty rather than a personal decision at the end of things.

This looks at the industrial strategy and supports various areas of digital twins. There is a great deal that can be done on planning which is specifically part of the strategy to reduce costs, enable collaboration and enable imagination on a new town. AI assisted capabilities on some British projects are something the government should be seeking support. I will try and persuade them to look at the critical national infrastructure and we need to sort things out and it is cruelty to animals by not resuming the structure as animals travel long distances to their deaths and we can do better than that.

I will recommend a duty of candour for planning officers to go with clause 50 so that they feel absolutely confident in telling members exactly what it is rather than feeling they can be criticised for their duty to support. I urge the government to redefine what a newspaper is as set out in 1881, things have moved on, and if we have clause 98 we will put notices in things they should recognise the modern world. Echoing national infrastructure and fighting on home soil and I draw the government attention to the fact that we may not have a chance now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

France. Before the debate started I thought we would hear the word architect, but we hardly heard it at
20:16
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
architect, but we hardly heard it at all in a debate about housing. I want to talk about design and the role of architects and in doing so can I say the speech I agreed with can I say the speech I agreed with I should confer start for a time I was the unpaid chair of design for homes, the organisation that runs the Housing design awards and therefore was exposed to the work of architects in great measure. I want to argue that building well-designed homes is a key aspiration to be realised through this bill.

But I would like to congratulate the government on their ambition to build so many dwellings, including as I understand it, so many of much needed social housing units to enable young families, above all to be able to remain in their own communities, and that applies nowhere more than in rural areas including the sort of communities I once represented in another place. I should say I have been troubled by some of the comments from parts of the Conservative Party.

I can just about recall, and I've done a bit of research, about what the Conservatives achieved in 1953 when Harold Macmillan was the Minister for housing in 1953 to 4, the Conservative government built 301,000 new homes in one year. And most of those were council houses, something they trashed following the 1979 election. And I very much regret that. My Lords, in speaking about architects and design, I would urge the government to do a number of what I regard as very important things.

First, have proper space standards within homes. The Parker Morris standards now out of use for many years served their purpose, look at some of the best council houses, for example in the Ministers and my hometown of Burnley. Where many council houses, for example were built to Parker Morris standards and good houses they were.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page