Lords Chamber

Monday 20th October 2025

(began 3 hours, 8 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Fees for for musical instrument certificates on touring orchestras and musicians, as proposed in the open consultation on reforming domestic CITES implementation in UK Baroness Keeley (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

the plan, which I look forward to presenting to your Lordships' House. Second oral question. Baroness Keeley. Yeah.
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Latest estimates of the current GDP per capita, and factors contributing to it Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-

The third oral. starting in my name on the Order Paper.
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Well, clearly we need to make sure that we retain top talent in this country, as the previous this country, as the previous questioner was asking me. But also we need to make sure we increase the living standards are right across the income distribution and particularly for working people. The my noble friend will know that wages continue to grow. And in the first ten months of this government, real wages rose by more than in the first Economy.

Economy. So Economy. So what Economy. So what does Economy. So what does the Economy. So what does the government Economy. So what does the government plan to do about it, both in the public sector and in the private sector? sector? Well, the noble Lady is absolutely correct to say that productivity is a long standing problem in the in the, in the economy. As I understand it, I think productivity fell to the lowest in the G7 under the previous government. So clearly it's very important that we prioritise that one of the most important things we are doing for productivity is increasing investment in our economy.

We've revised the fiscal rules to enable us to increase investment in the economy, and I regret very much that the party opposite oppose those changes to the fiscal rules.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can my noble friend, the Minister explained to the House the role of record levels of public investment record levels of public investment and how that contributes to economic growth? And in his answer, lest we growth? And in his answer, lest we forget. Could you remind the House of the financial legacy that we of the financial legacy that we inherited from the last government, most particularly the amount of the financial blackhole?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

financial blackhole? Yes. Yeah, I'm a noble friend. My noble friend is very generous in noble friend is very generous in inviting me to mention the £22 inviting me to mention the £22 billion black hole. But she's also absolutely correct to say that capital spending is a significant capital spending is a significant driver of growth in our economy. The OBR estimates that the increases in capital spending that we've seen capital spending that we've seen increased growth by 0.14% over five years, 0.43% over ten years, from years, 0.43% over ten years, from 1.4% in the long term.

And of course, as I've already said, it's very regrettable that the party
15:11
None Portrait Oral questions: Assessment and plans to address inequalities in the provision of healthcare among different population groups
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite opposes those capital spending plans. Fourth oral question Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fourth oral question Baroness Pitkeathley on behalf of Baroness Brown and so on. Behalf of my medical friend and
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

This This message

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This message from This message from the This message from the Commons. That they have passed the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill to Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill to which they desire. Your Lordships Agreement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agreement. My Lords, Sustainable Aviation is. Now, for the first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now, for the first time. The question is that this bill will be now read a first time, as many of that opinion, say 'content' many of that opinion, say 'content' do not content the contents kept. My do not content the contents kept. My Lords, we now come to two instruments previously debated in instruments previously debated in Grand Committee building safety Levy Grand Committee building safety Levy income. I will start again. My income. I will start again.

My Lords. We will. We now come to two instruments previously debated in instruments previously debated in Grand Committee Building Safety Levy, England Regulations 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Levy, England Regulations 2025. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Action. Is that this motion be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents it companies directors report. Payment Reporting Regulations 2025. Lord, Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords are back to approve the motion. Standing my name on the order of faith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary,
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
before clause one, amendment one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords. The beginning of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The beginning of. This report stage of this important. Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. I move again. Amendment one in my name, which is to insert a new name, which is to insert a new purpose clause at the beginning of the bill to define the obviously, to the bill to define the obviously, to define what it's about. While this bill aims to deliver significant change without a clear guiding change without a clear guiding statement of intent, we risk losing sight of the balanced objectives sight of the balanced objectives necessary to truly sustainable development.

So amendment one sets. development. So amendment one sets. Out the core purposes of this act to accelerate the delivery of new homes accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. To improve the planning and consenting processes, support nature recovery through more effective development through more effective development and restoration, and increase community acceptability of infrastructure and development. Now, this is not merely a statement of aspiration. It is an important mechanism for accountability and clarity that directs the interpretation and implementation of every subsequent clause.

At committee stage, there was support from across the House for a similar amendment. The benefit of adding a purpose clause to the bill is that it will enshrined in law the tensions between the need for construction and the requirement for robust environmental and democratic safeguards, the necessity of explicitly stating the duty to support nature recovery, for instance, directly addresses those profound concerns debated in committee on part three of the bill. Equally, many have voiced concerns about the negative impact of these reforms on local democracy and community voices.

The CPRE, for instance, has concerns regarding, and I quote, the dangerous erosion of democracy, inheritance inherent in measures that increase ministerial powers, such as the ability to issue holding directions, to stop councils refusing planning commissions when they don't accede to the law, to prevent them from issuing holding directions is a huge step in and denuding local voices. Local democratic councils from making the decisions about issues that affect their areas and their communities.

The inclusion of, for instance, the increased community acceptability and input of infrastructure and development directly mandates the government that the government and implementing authorities address these democratic deficits. It transforms community engagement from a burdensome, burdensome hoop to jump through a problem noted by the previous. Regime and the Planning Act of 2008, which led to proposals removing pre-application concerns. Consultation requirements into a stated core objective of the entire legislative framework. So the government's stated objective for this Doe remains the right one.

We must speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. However, acceleration without clear direction risks unintended long term consequences that undermine the very public good that the government seeks to achieve by accepting amendment one, we embed clarity, provide a crucial framework for legal interpretation, and establish legislative accountability for all stakeholders, ensuring that this major infrastructure bill delivers not just efficiency, but genuine sustainable development and broad

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public confidence. I beg to move. Amendment proposed before clause one. Insert the new. Clause printed. On the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the. Marshalled list. thank. The.
15:42
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

The. Noble Lady, the Baroness Lady Pinnock for focusing on minds here at the outset on what this bill is at the outset on what this bill is about. And it's a welcome amendment because while the Lady Pinnock has attempted to at least bring some thematic coherence for a ragbag of proposals from a dozen different departments, none of whom appear to be talking to each other now, I've read the press notices, and, my Lords, I've compared them to the bill's text. Never has a bill been more oversold by a government.

Belatedly, it now seems that the government's purpose for this bill is to persuade the OBR that it will speed up the process of development, so its economic forecasts can help The Chancellor balance her books. But most of the proposals of this bill will prove that Newtonian notion that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, it hands development veto powers to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a self-serving quango. It talks about empowerment and streamlining. Processes, but emasculating those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Processes, but emasculating those with the local knowledge and mandate to unblock officialdom. Instead, it proposes a system whereby the Secretary of State is to become a one person planning committee. Good luck keeping to the 12 week determination deadlines on that one. It could have ironed out hillside or introduced the proportionality test, introduced the proportionality test, so at least the little boys could get on. But there's boneheaded get on. But there's boneheaded resistance there. One talking head on. The today programme this morning bemoaned the lack of planning permissions, the number of which permissions, the number of which seems to be falling like autumn leaves, but fail to realise that it's the building safety regulator it's the building safety regulator that has put the black spot on building in London, with an at least building in London, with an at least a 44 week response rate.

And on that the bill is silent. So instead of unblocking the blockers, it creates unblocking the blockers, it creates the EDP process that is so ponderous it's unlikely to unlock any sort. it's unlikely to unlock any sort. Homes within this Parliament. In the three and a half years since we started the nutrient neutrality started the nutrient neutrality madness, it will be at least another three and a half years before we can get to rip off that scan. So, so get to rip off that scan.

So, so much for speeding building, and all it's doing is putting speed bumps in the way. Now, of course, I welcome the important and critical proposals to free up the placement of rose roadside power poles to improve the electricity grid, but even this government recognises that the potential of development corporations is something for the next Parliament, just at the moment that those structures and powers to unleash them are being thrown up in the air. So for all the bluster and press notices, my Lords, this Bill will slow development, not speed it.

By any measure, the government's purpose will be frustrated by its own legislation. So I come to the amendment, and which is to accelerate the delivery of homes, to improve the planning and consenting process, to support nature and increase community acceptability. And this is what we will be debating over four long days. What Lady Pinnock has done is laid out the functions of the bill. They are not its purpose. And the reason that this bill is in such a muddle is that it hasn't been framed through the purpose lens, which dates back to the Labour government of the post-war period, when the planning system was established in the first place.

Quite simply, the purpose of planning is to arbitrate between the private interest and the public good. Everything flows from there, and that balance between private and public is what makes the system work, makes the economy flourish and the environment in harms. My Lords, this bill gets that balance all wrong. Too much state interference, not enough private initiatives, so it's bound to fail, I'm sorry to say. And it's a shame because we need to get those homes built, those rivers cleaned up, and that clean power flowing and those new towns going.

But little will be achieved because in this bill, all roads flow to Marsham Street, that home to the dead hand of the state. So I hope the OBR is listening. Even at this 11th hour. It's not too late for them to make that call, because everyone and perhaps I've had more success than we have, because at committee stage, every single one of the 600 amendments that were made by noble Lords on all sides of the House was rejected. Perhaps that OBR is needed to clear the logjam, but I'm not holding my breath and it's a massive missed opportunity because the government didn't spend a moment, as Lady Pinnock did, to work out for itself what it wanted to achieve, to set a purpose that works with the grain of the nation, rather than always kicking against those bricks that should be laid by the bricklayers, the ground workers, tilers and carpenters who now sit idle as a result.

And until the moment where we get another planning bill, I will not stand against Lady Pennock, but I hope that she will reflect in the winding that she perhaps could have and should have gone a little bit further to frame her amendment in terms of enhancing that delicate balance between the private and the public interests so the economy can get going and these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

houses can get built. My Lords first.
15:47
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords first. Of all, can I declare my interest as vice president of the Local Government Association?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government Association? My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock for bringing forward this purpose clause. It serves as a timely reminder of what the Bill is meant to achieve. The delivery of 1.5 million new homes and important infrastructure projects. It is increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that this goal is slipping further and further from reach. The problem of my Lords is not simply one of ambition, but of process and principle. The government have tabled no fewer than 67 new amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Almost 30 pages of legislative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Text. And have done so at a very late stage. The media, I note, briefed in stage. The media, I note, briefed in advance. Yet this House received no explanation from ministers when those amendments were laid until those amendments were laid until last Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, such sweeping, circumstances, such sweeping, sweeping provisions would warrant detailed scrutiny, scrutiny and committee not introduction at report committee not introduction at report to describe them as minor or technical, as the ministers have technical, as the ministers have attempted, simply does not match the scale of significance of what has been briefed to the press.

The Financial Times and others have reported that the government's own description of these measures is description of these measures is what they represent is substantial reforms to the planning system. So reforms to the planning system. So which is it, my Lords? Are these minor adjustments or a fundamental rewrite of national planning policy? Because it does appear that what we are witnessing is a major talk up, are witnessing is a major talk up, an oversell of provisions designed to mask the government's ongoing failure to deliver the homes.

A conjuring trick, my Lord, saying one thing to the press and quite another thing to the press and quite another in this chamber. According to reports, the Prime Minister himself ordered a last minute rewrite of the bill, with ministers working throughout the weekend to agree a package intended to speed up major housing and infrastructure schemes. That was on Friday, the 10th of October. Earlier that same week, the Financial Times revealed that this rewrite forms part of a broader effort to boost growth and patch up public finances ahead of the November budget.

A budget date my Lords already circled in the calendar of many families in this country and of businesses and pensioners, though not with much enthusiasm. I have to say monthly construction output fell by an estimated 0.3% in August 2025, after showing no growth in July at all. I therefore asked the noble Baroness, the Minister, how will this bill change that? Should the government not instead be focusing on things like modular construction, on utilising 3D modelling, on reviewing outdated regulations? No Act of Parliament can succeed if the construction industry itself is faltering under the environment the government has created.

It is therefore fair to ask whether these amendments reflect deliberate legislative design or the political and fiscal pressures of the moment. By mid-October, the Treasury would already have seen the OBR preliminary forecasts and, I rather suspect, blanched at what they showed. It may be that in the face of deteriorating growth and revenue projections, someone in Whitehall decided that a hasty burst of planning reform might steady the nerves ahead of the budget. But, my Lords, legislation made in haste rarely makes good law.

The planning system must balance the urgent need for homes and infrastructure. As with, as we have heard, the rights of local communities and the principles of democratic scrutiny by bypassing consultation, local accountability and indeed proper deliberation, your Lordships' House and the government in the Lordships House, the government risks undermining the very trust and cooperation they will need to deliver their own housing ambitions. My Lords, the government clearly have not learned. They crudely cut 5 billion from welfare in haste in the spring in pursuit of a green tick on the OBR scorecard.

I fear they are now making the same mistake again, rushing to legislate for the sake of appearance rather than outcomes for this country. That is why this purpose clause is so valuable. It brings us back to the first principles. What is the purpose of this bill? Is it truly to build the homes or to centralise power? And my Lords, we don't even know who's in charge of this legislation. Is it number ten? Is it number 11 or is it MHCLG my Lords and noble Baroness the Minister knows that throughout the passage of this Bill I have sought to offer the government constructive support.

But it comes becomes even harder to do so when their approach borders on chaos. Saying one thing, doing another, briefing the press, plan claims, while sidelining Parliament and scrutiny. And I hope the minister recognises the depth of disappointment felt across this House. In conclusion, my Lords, whatever the government's intention, the manner in which these amendments have been introduced must not diminish the scrutiny they receive. The House has a duty to examine legislation carefully, especially when it touches on this delicate balance between local democracy and national authority.

We will approach these amendments with that spirit, with diligence, with patience and respect for due process. But we will not be rushed. We will not be intimidated into setting aside our responsibilities in the name of political convenience. The scale and consequence of these proposals demands nothing less than the full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and thoughtful consideration of your lordships House. Yeah. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Well. Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. But
15:53
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
debate on a purpose clause. But nevertheless, can I thank those who have contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock on the purpose of the bill? And can I thank Baroness Pinot for her extensive engagement between committee stage and this report stage? The. I know this is indeed an ambitious, ambitious piece of legislation. It's our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off.

And the Bill will support delivery of the government's hugely ambitious plan for change. Milestones of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast tracking 150 planned decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. And I would say to the noble Lord fella, when his government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, they failed to do so. Our government is working. Yes, and we are working across departments, and I welcome that to deliver what the last government failed to do, that is build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes and get our economy moving again.

I would say to the noble Baroness, Scott, in terms of the amendments that the government has tabled, and I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. She does accuse me in this chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen at committee stage. Some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised at committee stage. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved administrations and the rightful consultation we take with the devolved administrations at the in between committee and report stage.

There are some truly pro-growth measures which we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done in order to improve the delivery of infrastructure. And there are a number of technical minor amendments. And these this bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we've reissued the national planning Policy Framework. We've provided funding for planners and training for planners. We've provided a huge package of support for SMEs, and I met with the Appg for SME Home Builders the other day, and they and they were pleased with the package that's being delivered.

There's more to be done in working with them, and I will be happy to do that. And we've carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All of these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see. Now. I outlined the core objectives that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length at committee stage. So I don't suggest that I do it for a third time. I do recognise that planning law can be complex, part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret whether you're a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public.

And I also appreciate that where a bill has one sole objective, a purpose clause could clearly articulate this, assist people with understanding the bill, and affect the interpretation of its provisions. This bill is a number of different objectives, with much of it amending existing law. A purpose clause is not helpful in these circumstances and could create unintended consequences. It's simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision. My Lords, I believe we're all united by a shared objective today.

Whichever side of the House you sit. We all agree the House plays an important role in scrutinising legislation to ensure it achieves the intended objectives and to maximise the bill's benefit. I firmly believe that the intention behind this amendment is noble. I understand it's tabled to aid interpretation of the bill. My issue is with purpose clauses, and the reasons I cannot accept this amendment boil down to two things their necessity and the potential for unintended consequences. Well written legislation provides a clear articulation of what changes are proposed by government to deliver its objectives.

It is for government to set out in debate why it's bringing forward a bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for itself. The government's objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents, which set out the government's strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary. Excuse me according to the topic, some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another.

If this wasn't the case, the bill would lose its strategic vision. The government strongly supports a strategic approach to planning. The word strategic is mentioned 106 196 times in the bill as it was amended at committee. There's a chapter specifically called Strategic Plan Making, intended to ensure that planning decisions are undertaken at a more strategic level. Large parts of the bill are drafted to take a more strategic, targeted approach to achieving government's objectives. For example, this legislation will give regard to other strategic documents like the Clean Power Action Plan.

All of this is done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver government's objectives. Adding a purpose clause to this bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it will do the opposite. It will add additional room for interpretation to a bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify system. It risks creating additional complexity and interpretation, gumming up the planning system. Further, it will risk reinserting the gold plating behaviour we are seeking to remove.

Developers and local authorities, for example, will feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities which are much more relevant to other parts of the bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause will provide a hook for those looking to judicially review or appeal decisions in order to slow them down. The measures in the bill should be allowed to speak for themselves. They've been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The court should be left to interpret the law without having to navigate their way through a maze of different purposes, sitting on top of strategic objectives.

A purpose clause will create ambiguity rather than clarity. Noble Lords. It doesn't appear to me from the debate. I've heard that the House is confused by why a government is seeking to bring this bill forward. I think we all know we want. We seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore, move forward to further debate about how best to achieve them. And it's for those reasons that I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And also, I do thank all everyone who has been involved in this, this short, but I would regard as an important debate and thank those who
16:00
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
important debate and thank those who have supported in in word at least, the objective of the of amendment one, which is about setting out strategic purposes for the Bill and from time to time, parliamentary procedures have been considered and purpose clauses proposed. So it is a, I think, a debate that will continue, but whether or not it is right and helpful to have purpose clauses at the outset of a Bill does set out the strategy. And I do understand what the noble Baroness, the Minister, is saying about, you know, the strategies throughout the bill.

But if you have it right at the outset, it provides that clarity of what the bill was supposed to be trying to achieve now. And I, I never expect perhaps I should have expected the debate to move on to everything else that we do don't like about this bill from the noble Baroness Scott, or bits of everything she did like. But in the end, what is important is that we keep throughout this bill. We keep in mind that what we're trying to do is balance democracy, sustainability, infrastructure, being being built and having a proportional approach to it.

And sometimes in this bill that is lost. But I accept that. That this will not make a substantive difference to the bill. And I don't believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She's going. To look at this amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is finally withdrawn in in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is finally withdrawn in in clause one, amendment two, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. My Lords, I'm grateful to have.
16:02
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

This opportunity to speak to. My amendment to and hopefully extract a. Reassurance from the Minister and a. Reassurance from the Minister and the course of this short debate. nationally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Significant infrastructure. Projects and. How. It is. Expected they. Will operate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will operate. In the planning process as set out in the bill. I'm not satisfied

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the way that the process has been set out. And therefore. The thrust of amendment two. Is to. Call for a potential.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Call for a potential. Review, which, during the. Course of which I ask. That the. Secretary of State should assess

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State should assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects. On the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the. Environment. And in particular. On. Residents living in areas in which such projects are being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

developed. The issue was first. Raised. By. Me in one of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The regulatory. One of the statutory instruments. Giving effect to the Clean. Energy Act.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Energy Act. And I was very grateful to. The. Then minister, Lord hunt, who. Explained to me how cumulative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Impact was. Meant to operate. So I'm grateful to him in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to him in. That regard. What is very clear on the face of the Bill. That the. Cumulative impact of. All the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposals set out in this. Bill will be deep. And wide and unexpectedly so for all those.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all those. Living in rural areas. And yet there. Are opportunities to. Be involved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In. The process. Are actually going to be. its. Present form.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Present form. So it. Relates a little. Bit to the previous. Debate on the. Purpose of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Purpose of the bill. Because I believe that if. This bill is to. Function well, as. I'm sure the whole House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That spending however many hours we did. At committee would wish it to do. So. That the bill should. Actually ensure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. It operates effectively. I am proposals. Does relate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does relate. To nationally significant infrastructure projects are to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infrastructure projects are to. Benefit those living. In the Deep South of England and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

London, and to the particular, specific dis benefit of those rural residents of. The North of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The North of. England across the whole of the North of England. So I hope that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

North of England. So I hope that the House will appreciate noble Earls will appreciate that this amendment. Relates not so much to. The. House building aspects.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House building aspects. Of the bill, but more particularly to the nationally significant infrastructure projects.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significant infrastructure projects. Under the. Energy sectors. And I'm particularly thinking of solar farms particularly thinking of solar farms and the. Unimaginable scale that are currently being foreseen. This is not unique to this country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I follow developments. In Denmark. Very closely, and for the first time ever.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time ever. A solar farm was going to be created in a deeply. Rural part. Of the northern. Mainland of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mainland of. Denmark. Jutland. And a very effective. Campaign under rules that exist in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in. Denmark, which are very. Favourable to this type of project, has. Been so successful that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been so successful that. I'm delighted to say that. That particular solar project. Will not. Go. Ahead. And I envisage that there will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I envisage that there will. Be similar concerns in this. Country wants the. Full impact. Of. The bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The bill. Is known. My main concern is. Currently drafted. Is a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a. Question to the Minister, should there not be a requirement that the cumulative impact assessment should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cumulative impact assessment should understanding. Is that currently that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that currently that. Is not the case. If that is the case. Why is there no specific.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no specific. Provision in either the planning applications or specifically in the bill before us this afternoon that. bill before us this afternoon that. Such an assessment should be included in the Local Plan? Surely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

included in the Local Plan? Surely it is incumbent on developers and the planners. And indeed the Planning Inspectorate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To ensure that residents. Will. See that. There is a. Joined up planning application. That we no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we no. Longer see what we have seen historically, which is an application. For an offshore. Wind farm.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Wind farm. Over here. So those people living in East Anglia think, well, that's perfectly harmless. It won't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It won't. Affect me. So that's fine. It can go ahead. of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of. The planning. Application is to foist upon. Them a major. Substation that they had. No

**** Possible New Speaker ****

idea. Was going. To be built on their doorstep. And then the third stage of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And then the third stage of the application is the overhead pylons, which is causing. Such great concern, in particular in East Anglia and other parts of, of Anglia and other parts of, of eastern England. I'm thinking of East Yorkshire as well. Now. There have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have. Been two, if not three. Policy planning.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Policy planning. Planning Inspectorate policy last.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

last. Year, 1st September last year. The government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government. Really is bringing forward their own, if you. Like, those sort of proposals.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I believe that, as. I've said earlier, that the legislation currently is defective in. This regard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What is most concerning. About. The September 2024 advice is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The September 2024 advice is that it specifically says. I printed it. Off so I could read it correctly. That the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Advice is non-statutory. However. advice. About running the infrastructure. Planning regime and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Planning regime and. Matters of process is drawn from good practice. And applicants and others should follow their.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

follow their. Recommendations. So a further question to the Minister. This afternoon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This afternoon. Is if this. Advice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Published in September last year. Is non-statutory. How do we know that this. Advice and guidance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Advice and guidance. Will be followed? Surely it should be on the face of the bill. be. Spelt out in plain.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spelt out in plain. English for. All to. See and to understand. So when this. Fast track process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comes about. Then. understand. That the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the. welcomed. By civil engineers. When it was published at the time, lawyers I understand were split as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

split as. To how significant these changes developers. And that makes me think whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And that makes me think whether actually they'll have any effect whatsoever. So in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moving amendment to, I would just like to conclude by. Asking the Minister what assurance she can give the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assurance she can give the House today, and myself in particular, that there will be. Joined up. Planning applications. In future and what checks there. Will be and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will be and. What. Penalties will be imposed if. The. Planning advice which the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Planning advice which the Planning Inspectorate has brought forward is. Not followed. In. Each particular.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Each particular. For this. Fast track procedure, I'd like to move. Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line 14.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page one, line 14. It's end. Insert the words. Printed on. The. Shortlist.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. Attach my name to the. Amendment so ably introduced by the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. I'm just going to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pickering. I'm just going to speak very briefly. To express the reasons why I think this is something the government certainly needs to government certainly needs to address and respond to. We know that the government tends to operate in silos and tends to look at one silos and tends to look at one project at a time, without thinking of a comprehensive view of the overall impact on the country. And I think if we look at clause A in this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Focusing on the environment, in the past ten years or so, we've seen real progress in terms of understanding that we need to think
16:10
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
understanding that we need to think about the landscape on a landscape scale rather than just going, oh, we've got this nice little protected bit here or this nice little area there. And so I think this amendment starts to get at that issue of thinking at that landscape scale in terms of the environment, and it's not impossible to imagine. We know also recently we've got very aware of the importance of corridors through which different populations of wildlife can be linked up, and you could actually be having projects that one on their own.

Does it look to have a serious impact? But the two together effectively cut off separate, say, two populations of animals that may already be really lacking in genetic diversity and not be able to afford that separation in terms of the humans, the residents living in areas where the projects are being developed, I opposed says over the recess, I was speaking to a couple of people being very much affected by the 17 customs facility and the impact of light pollution.

Now, this is the sort of thing that we don't think about nearly enough. But again, this is something where we may see effects just build up and build up in terms of their impact on people's lives. And of course, the other obvious area where impacts may be cumulative is, of course, traffic, where if you have projects growing, linking together, the impacts of traffic could be absolutely disastrous on communities lives. So I think this amendment is a modest amendment. Just asking the government to think on a broader scale than I'm afraid.

Very typically, governments generally do.
16:11
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And my note is I amendment two, we've had introduced but not amendment three. I'm wondering whether. It has that being always being objective function. My mistake. So my Lords are the amendments in the amendment in this group I do believe has has merit. It is important as a noble farmer, Barnett has just said that there is a comprehensive overview of the cumulative impact of national strategic infrastructure projects on a wider area than just just the single project that is being considered now.

In response to the first group of amendments, the noble Baroness, the Minister was very clear in stating that the government wanted a more strategic approach to planning. Now I have issues with more strategic approach because often it is the detail. It's the details that that matter most. But but if there is to be a more strategic approach, surely that must imply that it is a more strategic approach, not just on a single project, but on the whole range of infrastructure projects that the 150 that the government has in mind for the remainder of this Parliament.

You know, so. The cumulative effect of road infrastructure, for instance, the cumulative effect of the move and which those of us on these benches totally support of a move to net zero and therefore more. Green infrastructure for energy creation. All that requires an oversight of the totality of those those projects because the it's the overall impact on local communities that will that is important to understand rather than project by project.

As the noble Baroness and explained and the Mackintosh or Pickering explain in terms of for instance wind farms or solar farms, all of which I support. But we need to understand what the cumulative impact of these are on a community and on the landscape and on the environment. So these are important. And I'm glad they've been brought, and I hope that the minister in her response will be able to satisfy those of us who have these concerns that the government is not going to run roughshod over the needs of communities and the environment while making their rush for growth.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, may I declare. My interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire? Can I thank my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my. Noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. For tabling this amendment and raising the issue of cumulative
16:15
16:16
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her amendment. To this amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess the cumulative impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects, known as CIPs, on both the environment and the communities in which such projects have been developed. When reviewing a national policy statement, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue, and I wholeheartedly agree that cumulative impacts, particularly those affecting the environment and local communities, must be given due consideration within the CIP consenting process.

And therefore, I'm very pleased to be able to reassure the noble Baroness that the existing regime already provides for such considerations. It's already a statutory requirement for the government to undertake an assessment of sustainability when designating or updating a national policy statement. These appraisals of sustainability, which includes the process of strategic environmental assessment, play a vital role in shaping national policy statements by evaluating their potential environmental, social and economic effects and any reasonable alternatives that could be used.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations require that the effects assessment includes an assessment of cumulative impacts, Non-spatial national policy statements that do not identify likely locations of any CIPs are strategic level documents, which means it's not possible to identify cumulative impacts in detail. However, cumulative impacts are addressed so far as possible at this level. At this stage, to meet the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations, detailed consideration of cumulative effects take place. It's important they take place at the project level by virtue of factors such as their nature, scale, location and CIPs are likely to have significant effects on the environment around them.

Under the Infrastructure Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations of 2017, an environmental impact assessment process must be undertaken and the Secretary of State is prohibited from granting consent until an AA has been carried out. The Environmental Statement must identify and assess the direct and indirect significant effects on specified factors, including environmental factors, population, human health. Cumulative effects are one of the required types of effects that must be identified and assessed. In short, while the concern raised by the noble Baroness is entirely valid, the existing framework already requires the consideration of cumulative impacts both in the preparation and in the review of national policy statements and in the assessment and consideration of Individual Development Consent Order.

Applications. The noble Baroness asked me about the Local Plan process, and I would add that the whole process of local plans focuses on cumulative impacts, and that is one of the purposes of it is to start off with individual policies and work through a process to cumulative impacts. And I believe this will be enhanced now by the addition of strategic level plans, giving a direct link from neighbourhood planning to local plans, two strategic plans and meaning that the whole the cumulative impact across that whole picture can be assessed.

In the light of this, I would respectfully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. On most grateful. For that
16:20
16:21
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Three, Baroness. Coffey, my Lords, I raised this at committee stage and this is an at committee stage and this is an identical amendment to that tabled in the House of Commons by multiple chairs of select committees who were concerned about the reduction of opportunity for at least the government's reply to some of the parliamentary scrutiny, which is rightly undertaken in terms of national policy statements. Now, one of the reasons why I, I listen carefully to what the Minister said at committee stage, and I haven't tabled a whole plethora of amendments.

Again, recognising that I wouldn't want to be unduly considered, to be trying to hold up national policy statements because I think they are a good thing. But the reason why I've re tabled this amendment is that I do believe that when Parliament puts forward recommendations or indeed has a resolution, the least we can expect is that the government will respond rather than in this legislation. Remove that as being a requirement of the law in that regard. So that is in a nutshell, why I think that this matters.

And the reason it matters is we are starting to see a number, an increasing number of national policy statements being tabled. Again, I actually think there's some a lot of merit in that giving, trying to give clear direction to the country, to residents, to developers or whoever in order to try and make sure that they can continue not only their lives, but also the consideration of future development in a measured and structured way. But I am conscious in reading the responses of the Minister and Minister in the Commons that a lot of focus seem to be oh well, when a Select Committee might take a bit of time, or we table a resolution anyway.

Oh, actually, sorry, I shouldn't say that the House has the opportunity to table a resolution, a resolution and vote on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. But actually. The practice has become that actually it's quite hard to table actually it's quite hard to table things in the House of Commons unless you have control of the parliamentary timetable. And I parliamentary timetable. And I noticed that while this House had a debate on nuclear power energy debate on nuclear power energy statements as an example, it didn't happen at the other end. Now, maybe everybody was happy, but it actually everybody was happy, but it actually more likely that certain parties may not have opportunity to look at the timetable.

And I know that the Select Committee, one of the our Lordships Select Committee, has made some recommendations in its report regarding the energy grid. I'm not aware that the government has yet replied or that they may have done recognising that a debate is to be tabled on that particular report as tabled on that particular report as a whole. But overall, I think it does matter that when this House is does matter that when this House is minded to at least give some comments or some thoughts on the national policy statements, that we national policy statements, that we should expect a response from the government.

And that is why I'm minded to test the House's opinion minded to test the House's opinion on this amendment today. Amendment propose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

propose. Clause two, page three, line 33. Leave out subsection three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, could I write briefly. To support my noble friend when I
16:25
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

To support my noble friend when I was Chair of the. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers, and under the last government. We published.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We published. A. Report regretting the trend that over the 30 years we'd. Seen more and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seen more and. More regulations made which bypassed Parliament, not just. The negative. Procedure rather than positive,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Procedure rather than positive, but departments rather than affirmative. The departments issuing guidance after guidance, none. Of which would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of which would. Come before Parliament. And the point I want to make is a simple one of principle we see in legislation. Parliament been bypassed in that case. In far too many cases, Parliament should not be bypassed unnecessarily. So I think my Noble friends amendment simply makes the point that Parliament should, that the government should consider motions by Parliament what select committees say and what they don't have to accept it. But at least we should have a chance to give that input otherwise.

And I also see in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cases otherwise. We will depend on various stakeholders to confirm the number of consultations issued by of consultations issued by departments where there's a huge list of stakeholders, some of them great and ground organisations, great and ground organisations, royal Colleges and organisations of the RSPB with goodness knows how many million members, but often many million members, but often parliamentarians or local MPs not listed parliamentarians are not considered, possibly not even the Select Committee, which might have relevant views on it.

So, my Lords, that's what I've got to say. I believe my noble friend is on the right lines here, and I hope the government would accept an amendment, or at least give us assurances that Parliament will not assurances that Parliament will not be bypassed in the way she has suggested.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggested. Oh my Lords, the amendment three, in the name of the noble Baroness copy, which I thought was coming in
16:26
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
copy, which I thought was coming in the previous group, we now have in front of us, and there is much to agree with in what the noble Baroness Coffey has said. You know, the national policy statements set the tone and the content for the NPPF and then the further guidance on planning legislation. So they are fundamental to the sort of base, I guess, of all, all the future, further changes to planning law. So these are very, very important.

And for the government to try and take out the opportunity for democratic oversight, democratic scrutiny. I think, is not just regrettable, but is a centralising process which we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should not be supporting. Why? Because planning affects

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because planning affects everybody's life one way or another. Major infrastructure projects or Major infrastructure projects or small housing developments. And so small housing developments. And so planning is affects people. And if it affects people, people's voices should be heard. And therefore the representatives democratically representatives democratically elected and of people ought to be heard. And it is our role in this heard. And it is our role in this House to scrutinise legislation. And House to scrutinise legislation.

And this is what is happening now. We're saying this will. Not do. You know, saying this will. Not do. You know, we can't have more centralising of planning processes and removing planning processes and removing democratic oversight in so doing. So, if the noble Baroness Coffey So, if the noble Baroness Coffey wishes, as she has intimated, to test the opinion of the House on test the opinion of the House on this issue, we on these benches will
16:28
16:30
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment turning to this amendment, amendment three, clause two introduces a new additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements. We all know national policy statements are absolutely the cornerstone of the planning system for our most significant national infrastructure. In the past, national policy statements have been too slow to reflect government priorities, planning policy or legislative changes, with some MPs not being updated for over a decade as the National Infrastructure Commission recognised previously, a lack of updates has created uncertainty for applicants for statutory consultees and the examining authority.

We also believe it has increased the risk of legal challenge and driven the gold plating in the system. We're all trying to avoid a central tenant of this government's reforms of the regime has been to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date, and clause one of this bill ensures that no national policy statement can be more than five years old without being fully reviewed and updated. To support this, it's vital that the process for updating national policy statements is proportionate to the change being proposed.

Currently, the procedure is the same regardless of whether the government is making a material change to a national policy statement or designating a new national policy statement. This can't continue. Clause two therefore introduces an additional streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements, where a change to an NPS reflects relevant published government policy. The amendment, revocation or repeal of legislation. A change to a published document referred to in the NPS, not otherwise amended as a result of changes under previous categories or a relevant court decision, the government will be required to publicly consult and carry out an appraisal of sustainability on the changes sought where required.

A Habitats Regulation assessment will also be undertaken. The updated NPS will then be laid before both houses for 21 days, during which time the House of Commons can resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. These amendments would remove this new procedure, adding months to the time frame, but updating NPSs and undermine the government's commitment to drive quicker decision making in the CIP regime. Updated NPS policy assists applicants and the examining authority, and the Secretary of State can have regard to it as important and relevant considerations in the decision making process for new applications, even if the application is examined against the previous version.

As a result of transitional provisions in the updated NPS recognising the role select committees can play in scrutinising and improving policy, a number of noble Lords have mentioned that during the debate, the government has committed to ensuring that they notify the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. The Minister will already have laid a statement before Parliament announcing the review of an NPS, regardless of the anticipated procedure to be used. The government has also committed to making ministers available to meet committees, so far as practicable.

Should a Select Committee publish a report within the time frames of the public consultation period, the government will take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before Parliament for 21 days, where it can be scrutinised by either House. The new procedure cannot and will not be used as a way to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny. Rather, we are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements. Were making certain types of updates to an NPS, so the process is more proportionate and enables national policy statements to be updated more quickly.

At the end of the reflective amendment process, the MPs, as amended, will still need to be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time the House of Commons can resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. For all the reasons I have given, I would kindly ask the noble Lady to withdraw her and then. My Lords, I've heard the Minister. I don't think the answer has changed since committee stage, which I since committee stage, which I regret. But I'm concerned that just removing any requirement by the government to either House is not government to either House is not satisfactory when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny, and therefore I will be testing the therefore I will be testing the opinion of the House.

Question is that amendment.
16:34
16:35
16:45
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
amendment for Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move amendment government amendment four and 256. This proposal responds to concerns raised by peers about the need to address water scarcity, particularly through easing restrictions on reservoir construction, to encourage more reservoir development, growing demand and climate variability have placed increasing strain on existing water resources in reinforcing the need for additional storage capacity. Without new reservoir capacity, we risk being unable to meet that future demand.

Reservoirs are fundamental to maintaining secure public water supplies and supporting economic growth. Yet delivery, particularly of major schemes, has been too slow under current processes. This amendment removes a procedural hurdle, thereby streamlining the consenting process and enabling faster delivery of major water projects. After more than 30 years without new major reservoirs in England. Crucially, it enables third party providers appointed by water undertakers to apply to deliver major water infrastructure, including reservoirs, transfer schemes and desalination plants, through the Streamline Development Consent Order route that will accelerate delivery of essential water infrastructure, help secure future water supplies and unlock housing and economic growth, including the delivery of new towns and our ambition for building 1.5 million homes.

This Parliament. Importantly, this change does not reduce environmental or public scrutiny. Projects will continue to be subject to the full planning process, including statutory consultation and environmental assessment. This amendment is an important step in both responding to concerns about water scarcity and supporting the pro growth measures contained within the bill. I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter to ensure it is quicker and easier to consent and build the reservoirs we need so desperately now and into the future.

My Lords, turning now to amendments five, six and seven. The government is content to accept these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. My Lords are mindful that water infrastructure, particularly reservoirs, has had a difficult history in parts of the United Kingdom. Communities still remember the loss and upheaval caused by past projects such as that capital killing. It is therefore right that as we modernise and expand the routes by which these essential schemes can be delivered, we also strengthen the mechanisms that guarantee their safety, integrity and public accountability.

These amendments make a helpful clarification to the government's amendment. Number four, they ensure that where a third party provider is appointed to deliver a large scale water infrastructure project under the Specified Infrastructure project regulations, that provider must be formally designated as an infrastructure provider under regulation eight. This means they will be fully subject to the statutory safeguards provided by those regulations. Those safeguards are vital. They ensure that any company delivering major water infrastructure is formally designated and operates within a framework of strict oversight and accountability of what supervision, the requirement for licensing and consultation, and the ability to challenge decisions through the Competition and Markets Authority altogether provide a robust system to protect both the public and the environment.

My Lords, I should also clarify that these amendments do not alter the position for projects delivered through direct procurement for customers, known as DPC. The other competitive procurement route for third party delivery of any CIPs Under that model, water companies competitively appoint third party providers to finance and deliver major infrastructure. This mechanism also has a strong regulatory framework with offer oversight, competitive tendering and measures to protect customers from cost and delivery risks. DPC is a useful option for less complex CIP scale projects, providing an alternative route for competitive delivery.

Under both schemes, projects benefit from strong regulatory protections for customers and the public, with clear oversight, risk management and accountability built in. By accepting these amendments, we bring greater clarity and reassurance that the statutory protections apply fully to third party providers under the CPR framework. This means these important projects can be taken forward with confidence, safely, transparently and in the public interest. Faster, flexible delivery of major water infrastructure is essential to secure resilient water supplies, support housebuilding and unlock local economic growth while always ensuring that safety, environmental and consumer standards are maintained.

And I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for tabling these amendments and for his engagement on this very important matter. My Lords turned to amendment seven. I welcome this amendment, which seeks to require the applicants for dams and reservoir schemes seek separate consent for the heritage impacts of their project outside of the n sip regime. While I recognise there may be concerns about the future impact of these desperately needed water projects on heritage assets, the government believes the thorough process set out in the Planning Act already provides adequate protections.

Applicants for all projects, including dam and reservoir schemes, are already required to include information relating to heritage impacts from their projects, including an assessment of any effects on such sites when they submit their application. Further, where the development is subject to environmental impact assessment regulations because of the likely significant effects on the environment by virtue of its nature, size, or location, the applicant is required to undertake an assessment of any likely heritage impacts, including cumulative impacts, as part of the environmental statement.

This is also set out in the Water Resources National Policy Statement, updated in July of this year. Moreover, concerns may be raised by communities or statutory bodies through relevant representations where the examining authority considers that more information is required before the Secretary of State before reporting to the Secretary of State, and they can require it from applicants and schedule hearings. In determining applications, the Secretary of State will identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by the proposed development, including affecting the setting of a heritage asset.

Taken account of the evidence, the Secretary of State must also comply with a specific decision making obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments placed on the Secretary of State set out in the Infrastructure Planning Decisions Regulations 2010. When making their decision, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historical interest which it possesses, requiring applicants to undergo a separate process to secure these consents would delay delivery of these critical infrastructure projects, adding additional process complexity and costs.

This goes against the intention of the Planning Act 2008 regime, which was introduced to provide a one stop shop approach for obtaining consents for large scale, nationally significant infrastructure. Moreover, it would also hinder this government's ambitions to speed up and streamline the planning process for major infrastructure projects. And for those reasons, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment seven. B My Lords, I thank the noble Lady Baroness Scott for tabling this amendment. It seeks to provide that in cases where a dam or reservoir is already defined as a nationally significant infrastructure project and will result in the demolition of 20 or more homes that those whose homes would be impacted are notified and may make representations to the Secretary of State before the scheme enters the planning route, with a view to perhaps preventing the project from being determined through the end CET regime.

I acknowledge the significant impact that projects have, but in particular dam and reservoir schemes can have, where numerous homes near each other are demolished. It's clear and we all share. We all agree that a thorough process must be followed, which allows all these issues to be understood before a decision is reached. That is why the Planning Act is so important, and we believe there is already sufficient legal requirement which provides adequate opportunity for impacted persons to be heard. I'm afraid the amendment seeks to insert discretion for the Secretary of State in a part of the process that does not exist.

Dams and reservoirs which meet the threshold set out in section 27 of the Planning Act 2008, are not directed by the relevant Secretary of State. They are automatically treated as end sets once they meet the threshold. In section 27, there is no other route to consent than via the Planning Act 2008. I do understand the amendment is driven by desire to ensure that the voice of impacted individuals is heard throughout the process, and before the Secretary of State makes the final decision whether to grant or refuse development consent.

And I would say emphatically, this is already provided for by the Planning Act 2008. All individuals who are impacted or whose land is proposed to be compulsory acquired, are both recognised as affected persons and are notified of an accepted application under section 56. This notification means these persons are treated as interested parties under section 102, without having to complete a registration form. This allows them to play an active role in the examination by submitting written and oral representations to the examining authority, so their views and specific circumstances can be heard by that examining authority.

These affected persons are also able to submit notice to the Secretary of State requesting a compulsory acquisition hearing, which the examining authority must hold. If a request is made by at least one affected person within the deadline set by the examining authority, individuals who are not directly impacted or whose land isn't being compulsory acquired can also submit a relevant representation and complete a registration form to be considered as an interested party, too. This provides an opportunity for those living nearby to engage and share their concerns with the examination.

Finally, local authorities are invited by the Secretary of State to submit a Local Impact report, which gives details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the authority's area. This may include the impact on individuals within that area. I don't agree that in cases where there are significant local impacts, it should automatically be the case that local decision making should be followed. This would remove the ability of government to make decisions in the national interest and ensure sufficient infrastructure is built, which makes a strategic rather than a local need.

There is no easy answer to the impact of projects on individuals and communities. However, the Planning Act 2008 provides a means through which to balance the interests the nation has in building the infrastructure it needs, particularly water infrastructure, with the interests of those acutely impacted, applicants will be expected to argue why alternative sites are not appropriate and how impacts, where possible, may be mitigated. And for all those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness Scot will withdraw her amendment on amendment 56.

The government already take steps to facilitate the building of both small and large reservoirs. A £104 billion of private sector investment has been secured through Ofwat price review, and we continue to support farmers to develop local resource options to secure water supplies. Reservoir safety legislation does not prevent new reservoirs being constructed, but does ensure that structures are well built and maintained. Reservoirs which store water above ground level pose potential risk to life, property, business, the environment and cause economic disruption to local communities.

If the dam structure were to fail. These risks are managed through reservoir safety regulation. Reservoirs which store water below ground do not pose the same risks and so are out of scope of reservoir safety regulation. The government's advice to farmers and landowners is to consider options for non raised water storage. First, the government is intending to consult soon on proposals to improve reservoir safety regulation, including making the requirements more tailored to the level of hazard posed and bringing some smaller raised reservoirs into scope.

These proposals do not alter the need for more reservoirs, nor do they prevent new ones being built, but are to ensure that reservoir dams are structurally sound and that flood risks for communities downstream are effectively managed. There is already a permitted development right which enables the creation of on farm reservoirs, where they are reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes. Under this agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to manage and control impacts of development.

We haven't got the exact numbers for these, but I believe there are around 3000 of them, so people are already taking advantage of that. Changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation, as amendments to the General Permitted Development Order, often following consultation. Carrying out a public consultation ensures the views of the public, including those that will benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. It also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and consideration of how these might be mitigated.

The government will continue to keep permitted development rights under review. It's important that new reservoirs are built in locations where they do not pose flood risk for local communities, and the existing reservoir dams are structurally safe. I thank the noble Lady for tabling this amendment and ask that she withdraw based on the actions already being taken forward to review safety regulations impacting small low hazard reservoirs and the subsequent secondary route to make any necessary changes to encourage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their creation. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause two, insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. Amendment five is an amendment to Amendment five is an amendment to amendment four. Lord Lambton. My Lord, thank you. I rise to move. Lord, thank you. I rise to move. Amendments five, six and seven in my name, which are all designed to
17:00
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
achieve the same purpose, which I will go on to explain, but happily, I don't have to explain at any length because of the admirable way in which the noble Lady the Minister introduced amendment four and explained her approach to five, six and seven. I'm most grateful for the time she gave for the discussion last week on on the amendments and my proposals for amending that. Can I just say, of course, noble Lords will recall that there was no debate on this in committee.

These are amendments tabled just at the beginning of last week, I think. I hope we all agree that the purpose is a beneficial one, which is to facilitate the pace at which we want to proceed with water dams and reservoirs as nationally significant infrastructure projects. My point when I looked at the amendments as tabled at the beginning of last week, was that it seemed to me that what the government might have been looking for was that when an undertaking has been appointed by a water undertaker to carry out an infrastructure project, that is sufficient in itself for the project itself to be designated as a nationally significant infrastructure project.

But of course, the regulations, the 2013 regulations about specified infrastructure projects goes on after regulations six, which is includes the point at which a person is appointed by a water undertaker. To go on to say that there is a process which, governed by Ofwat of designating that person as an infrastructure provider under regulation eight, which then gives rise to requirements on the provision of information and related matters under regulation nine and actually links into section 36 D of the Water Industry Act, which provides specific powers and duties of Ofwat in relation to an infrastructure provider.

So looking at that, I was slightly worried that there would be a gap, a gap between a person appointed by a water undertaker to carry out a project and any subsequent point at which that person is designated as an infrastructure provider under the regulations. Indeed, perhaps they wouldn't go on to be designated as an infrastructure provider, and the there would be then serious legal risk associated with their position, since they would not be subject to the powers and duties related to Ofwat.

So I'm very happy that the Minister has agreed. Of course, the worry is that this interpose is a further delay in practice. I don't think so. That need not be the case. For example, the 2013 regulations were brought in essentially to facilitate the Thames Tideway Tunnel and the, the, the, the what happened in practice was that the financial close with Bazalgette Limited and the designation as an infrastructure provider happened on the same day. So there's absolutely no reason why these processes should not be able to be compressed.

For example, the section 35 direction, which has been sought by Anglian Water in order to designate the Fens Reservoir as a nationally significant infrastructure project. The letter to the department went in on the 22nd of April, and the letter from the department agreeing that it was so designated was on the 14th of May. But of course, the point that I noted when I looked to all these things was that the letter from the department says that the that there must then subsequently, whichever is the infrastructure provider must be designated as such under under the 2013 regulations.

So I think it all neatly ties together. I hope there is no risk of delay, but certainly I think my amendments five, six and seven will ensure that we avoid the possibility of a legal risk associated with a gap where somebody is appointed to do an infrastructure project of importance, but actually aren't subject to off of what's duties, and don't themselves have any information and other responsibilities. So I hope when the time comes I will move amendments five, six and seven.

And I'm grateful to the Minister for accepting.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. May I intervene very briefly indeed. As Lord Lansley
17:05
17:06
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
covered. But the role of smaller reservoirs. I did say to the minister at that time that while I won't stand against the creation of large reservoirs, I do have some concerns about them. They're not always particularly efficient, particularly given the weather that we've had in successive summers. With the intensive heat, there can be very inefficient as the water can evaporate very quickly, as we've seen in North Yorkshire, where I think we are still seeing a hosepipe ban in, in place.

The I don't know how many will will remember the wonderful David Bellamy, who made his name when he was professor of botany at the University of Durham. And I see a number of alumni around the chamber this afternoon. But he was particularly concerned when a reservoir was due to be constructed at Cal Green in Upper Teesdale, where I grew up in the Pennines, and the significance was that blue junctions only grow in certain parts of the country, and Upper Teesdale was one of them.

Outside the immediate alpine regions of Austria and Switzerland. And we were all particularly grateful to Professor Bellamy at the time, who spoke passionately against the need for the creation of such a reservoir. It was a massive reservoir. It meant that the highest waterfall in England, certainly at the time, now only has one waterfall in most cases, rather than the two that were spectacular to see when the river was in. The River Tees was in state. But perhaps that not not just also was it the tragic loss of a number of farms who were lost and flooded with the construction of the reservoir? But the fact that the water is never actually needed.

So it would be helpful to understand where in the process of these planning applications for national infrastructure, nationally significant infrastructure projects, that the need is felt to be so great at one stage and then when constructed at the water is never actually used. There are alternatives to large reservoirs. We were asked to create a large reservoir for the Slow the Flow project in Pickering to prevent the town of Pickering flooding to the extent it had, I think it was three times in ten years and probably longer and 20 years.

But since it was deemed to be unaffordable, to build the large reservoir that was required, a smaller reservoir was created with other schemes such as planting of trees and the creating of little smaller dams to soak up that water, which has proved extremely effective to date. And since the creation of the smaller reservoir, Pickering has not no longer flooded. Also, Yorkshire Water introduced a multi-million pound project which was to transfer water from the water plenty parts of the region to the water stressed part of the region that I think we now have the technology to do that across water regions, so I hope that that's something also the government may look at, rather than just considering the easy option of building a mega reservoir.

My particular amendment looks at the deregulation of low hazard reservoirs and the case for smaller reservoirs. Not here, with obviously some. It was pleasing to hear what the minister said, and she set that out. I am sure she's also aware that there were recommendations set out in 2019, some six years ago, following the Toddbrook and Whaley Bridge dam safety incident. Now my concern, my Lords, is that there is no sense of urgency that we have not seen anything happen since 2019.

As regards looking at bringing in a revision of the Reservoir Act of 1975 currently, I understand that they're looking at not just amending the Reservoir Act of 1975, which was the particular genesis of amendment 56, but that the government, the previous government. So I think this government is probably pursuing that thinking, but it would be good to have it on the record this afternoon that the government's intention is to replace the Reservoir Act and to bring, in effect to the Bamforth recommendations, which were made, as I say, as far back as 2019.

There are many pressing reasons for smaller reservoirs, both on farm and for sports clubs such as golf clubs, to do this, but in particular in the case of small farms. There was an excellent article in recently and Farmer's Weekly showing that because of the increasing water stress and water shortage owing to climate change, the many competing claims that farmers are are finding, and the fact that water abstraction is going to be curtailed in the future. They are particularly concerned that food is not seen as a public good when it comes to securing water supplies.

So if farmers face losing abstraction licences in April next year, this is a source of great concern to them. So I do hope the Minister will look favourably on applications for smaller. On farm or on golf club reservoirs, for the reasons that I've set out, and for these reasons, I would still like to consider either testing the opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the House on amendment 56 today, Reading. I know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know. I failed to pick up after the end of Lord Lansley speech that he had not actually moved his amendment, so not actually moved his amendment, so perhaps I could ask him so to do now, and we can get everything back on the straight and narrow. Men proposed in inserted subsection four of subsection two at end, insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of subsection two at end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. Now perhaps the debate can continue. But I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I. Have amendment seven A in this group which, like. Noble friend Lord Lansley, amendment five is an
17:13
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page