Lords Chamber
11:07
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
For further consideration. On report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. The question is that this Bill be now further considered on report is mere that people will say content contrary, not content. say content contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 33, amendment 47. Lord Moylan. amendment 47. Lord Moylan. Let's make a quick step. And before we continue, my Lords, before the first group is debated, I rise to remind the House of some important guidance on report stage, which will hopefully help proceedings run smoothly.
Firstly, I want to highlight paragraph 4.23 of the companion, which states that debate must be relevant to the question before the House. Whilst debates on the Bill are being important and no doubt interesting, a number of contributions of Dear One strayed into numbers a number of wide topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I would urge urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny while allowing us to make good progress in good time.
Secondly, a reminder of the laws of the companion guidance that members pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and should not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving or pressing an amendment, which is paragraph 8.8. Two of the companion speeches appeared to be getting longer at this point, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we will be able to get to votes in a more timely manner. Yeah.
Firstly, I want to highlight paragraph 4.23 of the companion, which states that debate must be relevant to the question before the House. Whilst debates on the Bill are being important and no doubt interesting, a number of contributions of Dear One strayed into numbers a number of wide topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I would urge urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny while allowing us to make good progress in good time.
Secondly, a reminder of the laws of the companion guidance that members pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and should not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving or pressing an amendment, which is paragraph 8.8. Two of the companion speeches appeared to be getting longer at this point, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we will be able to get to votes in a more timely manner. Yeah.
11:09
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
That includes 33 amendment 47. Lord Moylan and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment number 47, which relates amendment number 47, which relates to clause 33. We did debate this in to clause 33. We did debate this in committee at some length, but the result of that debate was not in any result of that debate was not in any sense satisfactory from my point of view, although I wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the letter written to me by the Minister after the committee debate, Minister after the committee debate, which covered a number of points, including this, but added I am afraid only to the veil of obscure obscurity surrounding this issue, obscurity surrounding this issue, rather than clarifying it.
My Lords, perhaps I can just explain the perhaps I can just explain the political background to this, which gives rise to concern, which is that as a Conservative party, we are the party of the rights of property. And when we see clauses that coming forward which appear to extend the rights of compulsory purchase on rights of compulsory purchase on behalf of the state, we wish to behalf of the state, we wish to explore them and understand them and see if they are absolutely necessary, especially my Lords, when they appear as effectively a one line clause at the bottom of the left hand page, in a bill which appears to be largely about other matters.
As I said in committee, this is an issue which could well deserve a bill in itself. It certainly deserves proper scrutiny, and it certainly deserves clarity about what the clause is actually doing. Now, I will give the government something for free, and that is that the National Farmers Union strongly supports this clause. And I'll read out very briefly, if I may, from their reasoning for doing so and their account of the clause. They say this is a positive step for landowners, as presently National highways can only apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to use the land needed for a scheme under the Bill.
That is, as a result of this clause, developers using the Highways Act for a project will be able to temporarily use and possess land rather than acquire it. Now the first thing I'd say is that is a much clearer and better account of what the clause is doing than any that I have heard from the Minister or the government so far. But the question, the first question one has to ask is whether the National Farmers Union's understanding of the clause is correct.
So can the government say what it's doing? For example, in the letter, the minister said to me, sent to me, he said that the clause put beyond doubt the government's, the department's existing powers. But the National Farmers Union believe this is a new power. It is not a matter of putting something beyond doubt. It is a new power and legal advice that I have informally taken outside the chamber suggests that it is indeed a new power, and not simply putting something beyond doubt.
So first of all, can the government state clearly and crisply what the clause is doing and what is new about it? That's the first question. The second question relates to this issue as to whether the land the clause can be used for the temporary acquisition of the ownership of land.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Excuse me? The temporary acquisition of the ownership of land. That would be ownership of land. That would be something akin to requisitioning in the Second World War, and it would the Second World War, and it would be something totally new. Or is it relating to the possibility of relating to the possibility of occupying land for traditionally done by means of a licence or a done by means of a licence or a waiver eve, or something of that sort, so that you have rights over sort, so that you have rights over somebody else's land for a period? But but the land remains their But but the land remains their property throughout.
Now, it's unclear which of those two, this or unclear which of those two, this or both? Is it allowing one or both that this clause does because it that this clause does because it refers specifically to possession or occupation, suggesting that there is occupation, suggesting that there is a difference in the minds of the draughters between possession and occupation. That question, of course, is tested by the wording of my amendment, which would leave out my amendment, which would leave out the words possession or that will test whether whether this is tautologies or whether it has.
There is a genuine distinction, but if there is a genuine distinction, could the government explain what the distinction is and whether it includes the temporary acquisition of the title to land in some fashion or other, because that would be completely new and definitely worth closer scrutiny. And if they are tautologies and there is no distinction, could the government perhaps accede to my proposal in my amendment, that one of them be left out so that we have one that is operative and actually works? The third thing is.
There is no promise of any guidance to accompany this, so that in creating this new power, and I would assert on advice that the power is new, it is not putting something that exists beyond doubt in creating this new power. It seems to me that questions of a practical character arise, which should be covered by guidance, and before it becomes operative. A small example would be how long can somebody temporarily acquire land for how long? Beyond completion of the works? Are they allowed to keep occupation of the land? This might be something as simple as how long can can can construction huts be left on land beyond the point they're actually needed? The state in which the land is to be returned, if it is temporarily acquired, that would all be very useful to know in strong guidance from the government, which would accompany this new power.
But again, this is all completely absent. I do think, my Lords, that this these are issues which are not trivial and deserve proper scrutiny. If this new power is to be created. And so I beg to move my amendment in the hope of clarifying something. Some of these things, but reserving the right to test the opinion of the House on whether the removal of possession from the from the clause would make a material difference or not. I look forward to hearing what the government had to debate, and to hearing what the government has to say in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment. Propose clause 33, page 48, line 39. Leave out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment number 47, which relates amendment number 47, which relates to clause 33. We did debate this in to clause 33. We did debate this in committee at some length, but the result of that debate was not in any result of that debate was not in any sense satisfactory from my point of view, although I wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the letter written to me by the Minister after the committee debate, Minister after the committee debate, which covered a number of points, including this, but added I am afraid only to the veil of obscure obscurity surrounding this issue, obscurity surrounding this issue, rather than clarifying it.
My Lords, perhaps I can just explain the perhaps I can just explain the political background to this, which gives rise to concern, which is that as a Conservative party, we are the party of the rights of property. And when we see clauses that coming forward which appear to extend the rights of compulsory purchase on rights of compulsory purchase on behalf of the state, we wish to behalf of the state, we wish to explore them and understand them and see if they are absolutely necessary, especially my Lords, when they appear as effectively a one line clause at the bottom of the left hand page, in a bill which appears to be largely about other matters.
As I said in committee, this is an issue which could well deserve a bill in itself. It certainly deserves proper scrutiny, and it certainly deserves clarity about what the clause is actually doing. Now, I will give the government something for free, and that is that the National Farmers Union strongly supports this clause. And I'll read out very briefly, if I may, from their reasoning for doing so and their account of the clause. They say this is a positive step for landowners, as presently National highways can only apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to use the land needed for a scheme under the Bill.
That is, as a result of this clause, developers using the Highways Act for a project will be able to temporarily use and possess land rather than acquire it. Now the first thing I'd say is that is a much clearer and better account of what the clause is doing than any that I have heard from the Minister or the government so far. But the question, the first question one has to ask is whether the National Farmers Union's understanding of the clause is correct.
So can the government say what it's doing? For example, in the letter, the minister said to me, sent to me, he said that the clause put beyond doubt the government's, the department's existing powers. But the National Farmers Union believe this is a new power. It is not a matter of putting something beyond doubt. It is a new power and legal advice that I have informally taken outside the chamber suggests that it is indeed a new power, and not simply putting something beyond doubt.
So first of all, can the government state clearly and crisply what the clause is doing and what is new about it? That's the first question. The second question relates to this issue as to whether the land the clause can be used for the temporary acquisition of the ownership of land.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Excuse me? The temporary acquisition of the ownership of land. That would be ownership of land. That would be something akin to requisitioning in the Second World War, and it would the Second World War, and it would be something totally new. Or is it relating to the possibility of relating to the possibility of occupying land for traditionally done by means of a licence or a done by means of a licence or a waiver eve, or something of that sort, so that you have rights over sort, so that you have rights over somebody else's land for a period? But but the land remains their But but the land remains their property throughout.
Now, it's unclear which of those two, this or unclear which of those two, this or both? Is it allowing one or both that this clause does because it that this clause does because it refers specifically to possession or occupation, suggesting that there is occupation, suggesting that there is a difference in the minds of the draughters between possession and occupation. That question, of course, is tested by the wording of my amendment, which would leave out my amendment, which would leave out the words possession or that will test whether whether this is tautologies or whether it has.
There is a genuine distinction, but if there is a genuine distinction, could the government explain what the distinction is and whether it includes the temporary acquisition of the title to land in some fashion or other, because that would be completely new and definitely worth closer scrutiny. And if they are tautologies and there is no distinction, could the government perhaps accede to my proposal in my amendment, that one of them be left out so that we have one that is operative and actually works? The third thing is.
There is no promise of any guidance to accompany this, so that in creating this new power, and I would assert on advice that the power is new, it is not putting something that exists beyond doubt in creating this new power. It seems to me that questions of a practical character arise, which should be covered by guidance, and before it becomes operative. A small example would be how long can somebody temporarily acquire land for how long? Beyond completion of the works? Are they allowed to keep occupation of the land? This might be something as simple as how long can can can construction huts be left on land beyond the point they're actually needed? The state in which the land is to be returned, if it is temporarily acquired, that would all be very useful to know in strong guidance from the government, which would accompany this new power.
But again, this is all completely absent. I do think, my Lords, that this these are issues which are not trivial and deserve proper scrutiny. If this new power is to be created. And so I beg to move my amendment in the hope of clarifying something. Some of these things, but reserving the right to test the opinion of the House on whether the removal of possession from the from the clause would make a material difference or not. I look forward to hearing what the government had to debate, and to hearing what the government has to say in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment. Propose clause 33, page 48, line 39. Leave out
11:17
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
page 48, line 39. Leave out possession or.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, that's a good start to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, that's a good start to the debate today on the on the bill, a rather arcane debate to start off rather arcane debate to start off the day and. My Lords, I did I did the day and. My Lords, I did I did wonder when I listened carefully to what the noble Lord Moylan had to what the noble Lord Moylan had to say, whether he had actually read the original clause in the Highways the original clause in the Highways Act of 1918, which the government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
are intending to. But I assure the noble Lady of that I have. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I'm I'm really pleased he has. I did wonder whether therefore he understood it. So it's surprising that he's chosen to create legal uncertainty, which is what I think uncertainty, which is what I think is happening by his amendment. The consequence of the amendment appears to be that developers needing a to be that developers needing a temporary use of land have in the past had to use compulsory past had to use compulsory acquisition powers if the landowner was not prepared to provide a temporary use.
So the bill provides, it seems to me, more assurance, both land owners and for those improving or constructing new roads. The amendments for those of us on these benches makes no sense, except as a tool to frustrate road improvements, and we will not support the amendment. Yeah, OK. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, that's a good start to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, that's a good start to the debate today on the on the bill, a rather arcane debate to start off rather arcane debate to start off the day and. My Lords, I did I did the day and. My Lords, I did I did wonder when I listened carefully to what the noble Lord Moylan had to what the noble Lord Moylan had to say, whether he had actually read the original clause in the Highways the original clause in the Highways Act of 1918, which the government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
are intending to. But I assure the noble Lady of that I have. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I'm I'm really pleased he has. I did wonder whether therefore he understood it. So it's surprising that he's chosen to create legal uncertainty, which is what I think uncertainty, which is what I think is happening by his amendment. The consequence of the amendment appears to be that developers needing a to be that developers needing a temporary use of land have in the past had to use compulsory past had to use compulsory acquisition powers if the landowner was not prepared to provide a temporary use.
So the bill provides, it seems to me, more assurance, both land owners and for those improving or constructing new roads. The amendments for those of us on these benches makes no sense, except as a tool to frustrate road improvements, and we will not support the amendment. Yeah, OK. OK.
11:18
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
Let's move on. Moylan for amendment 47, which seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to grant powers to an acquiring authority to compulsorily possess land necessary to facilitate delivery of highway schemes. The purpose of the measure is to allow acquiring authorities to temporarily possess land when needed for highway works, the exclusion of others without resorting to permanent acquisition, permanent acquisition of land, or acquiring the freehold or long leasehold title of the land would mean that the acquiring authority would own the land outright and permanently.
This is unnecessary and disproportionate when the land is only needed temporarily. In the event that agreement cannot be reached. This clause would enable an acquiring authority to compulsorily acquire the right to temporarily possess and occupy the land needed to facilitate the delivery of a highway scheme. The rights for an applicant to temporarily possess or occupy land are routinely granted in development Consent orders and Transport and Works Act orders. Further, the. Furthermore, the power to use the same land compensation provisions as apply to compulsory purchase, adapting them as necessary to affect the temporary nature of the interest being acquired.
So I'd say to noble Lord more than that, he he quoted the National Farmers Union. It's it isn't a new power. It's an implied right to take land temporarily that already exists and is already used. But this, the government's bill makes it explicit. Temporary possession is a well-established legal concept. It provides certainty and practical powers essential for the safe, efficient delivery of infrastructure works. Temporary possession would offer an acquiring authority, being a local highway authority or national highways, a safe and proportionate route to exclude others from the land temporarily.
This is critical when the land is needed for highways works. This could involve storing equipment and construction materials, manoeuvring large construction vehicles, as well as creating temporary routes to keep works traffic off the highway. Temporary occupation, on the other hand, is the sole remaining power under the amended clause would not confer the right to exclude others. This would pose serious safety risks and could undermine project delivery. Without clear powers, authorities are unlikely to use the amended provision. It risks introducing legal uncertainty, prolonging negotiations leading to a increase in objections and public inquiries, all of which would increase costs and could delay delivery.
The Highways Act 1980 already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land, and clause 33, as I said, would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession. Clause 33 is currently drafted. Provides the legal certainty, operational clarity and safeguards necessary for the safe and timely delivery of infrastructure projects. It is not creating a new novel power. It is about ensuring that highways infrastructure can be delivered safely and proportionately. I would also say to the noble Lord more than that, having I believe, hopefully clearly defined the difference between possession and occupation, I would also say that actually this is not an attempt to own the land.
In fact, it's clearly an amendment designed not to own the land. So the title to the land wouldn't change. It's, it's, it's a right to occupy the land he finally raised in, in his points how long it would be after, after work's finished that the land can be possessed and whether or not there would be a need for guidance and I will that that that clearly is, is a subsidiary matter. But I'll take that away and write to him on that subject afterwards.
I'd therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
This is unnecessary and disproportionate when the land is only needed temporarily. In the event that agreement cannot be reached. This clause would enable an acquiring authority to compulsorily acquire the right to temporarily possess and occupy the land needed to facilitate the delivery of a highway scheme. The rights for an applicant to temporarily possess or occupy land are routinely granted in development Consent orders and Transport and Works Act orders. Further, the. Furthermore, the power to use the same land compensation provisions as apply to compulsory purchase, adapting them as necessary to affect the temporary nature of the interest being acquired.
So I'd say to noble Lord more than that, he he quoted the National Farmers Union. It's it isn't a new power. It's an implied right to take land temporarily that already exists and is already used. But this, the government's bill makes it explicit. Temporary possession is a well-established legal concept. It provides certainty and practical powers essential for the safe, efficient delivery of infrastructure works. Temporary possession would offer an acquiring authority, being a local highway authority or national highways, a safe and proportionate route to exclude others from the land temporarily.
This is critical when the land is needed for highways works. This could involve storing equipment and construction materials, manoeuvring large construction vehicles, as well as creating temporary routes to keep works traffic off the highway. Temporary occupation, on the other hand, is the sole remaining power under the amended clause would not confer the right to exclude others. This would pose serious safety risks and could undermine project delivery. Without clear powers, authorities are unlikely to use the amended provision. It risks introducing legal uncertainty, prolonging negotiations leading to a increase in objections and public inquiries, all of which would increase costs and could delay delivery.
The Highways Act 1980 already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land, and clause 33, as I said, would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession. Clause 33 is currently drafted. Provides the legal certainty, operational clarity and safeguards necessary for the safe and timely delivery of infrastructure projects. It is not creating a new novel power. It is about ensuring that highways infrastructure can be delivered safely and proportionately. I would also say to the noble Lord more than that, having I believe, hopefully clearly defined the difference between possession and occupation, I would also say that actually this is not an attempt to own the land.
In fact, it's clearly an amendment designed not to own the land. So the title to the land wouldn't change. It's, it's, it's a right to occupy the land he finally raised in, in his points how long it would be after, after work's finished that the land can be possessed and whether or not there would be a need for guidance and I will that that that clearly is, is a subsidiary matter. But I'll take that away and write to him on that subject afterwards.
I'd therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
11:22
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
My. Minister I, I thought I asked some fairly precise questions. I don't feel that the noble Lord has has answered the questions with the precision that I was hoping for, and therefore, at the appropriate moment I will seek to testify in in the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to, as many of that will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be agreed to, as many of that will content. Not. The question will be decided
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to, as many of that will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be agreed to, as many of that will content. Not. The question will be decided
11:23
Division: Planning and Insfrastructure Bill: Amdt: 47
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Border.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Border. Voting is now open. Clear the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, Oh, yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, yes. Make Oh, yes. Make sure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, yes. Make sure. That. That. OK, That. OK, I. That. OK, I. Might want. To take you back to that answer. Yes, Yes, yes. Yes, yes. I. Yes, yes. I. Right. Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. OK. Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. OK. So Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. OK. So I. Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. OK. So I.
Was put on the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For For my For my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords order. My Lords. Tell us. For the contents of not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order appointed pursuant to Standing Order Number 52. A division therefore, cannot take place, and I declare cannot take place, and I declare
Division: Planning and Insfrastructure Bill: Amdt: 47
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Border.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Border. Voting is now open. Clear the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, Oh, yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Make
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, yes. Make Oh, yes. Make sure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, yes. Make sure. That. That. OK, That. OK, I. That. OK, I. Might want. To take you back to that answer. Yes, Yes, yes. Yes, yes. I. Yes, yes. I. Right. Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. OK. Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. OK. So Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. OK. So I. Yes, yes. I. Right. OK. OK. So I.
Was put on the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For For my For my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords order. My Lords. Tell us. For the contents of not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order appointed pursuant to Standing Order Number 52. A division therefore, cannot take place, and I declare cannot take place, and I declare
11:30
Division Negated
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That That that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. That that. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. I. That that. I. Whoever.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. I. Whoever. That that. I. Whoever. I. That that. I. Whoever. I. Thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. I. Whoever. I. Thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. I. Whoever. I. Thank. And My My Lords. My Lords. My My Lords. My Lords My Lords. My Lords next thing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now move on. And in clause 41
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now move on. And in clause 41 and then 48, Baroness Pinnock.
Division Negated
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That That that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. That that. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. I. That that. I. Whoever.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. I. Whoever. That that. I. Whoever. I. That that. I. Whoever. I. Thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. I. Whoever. I. Thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That that. I. Whoever. I. Thank. And My My Lords. My Lords. My My Lords. My Lords My Lords. My Lords next thing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now move on. And in clause 41
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now move on. And in clause 41 and then 48, Baroness Pinnock.
11:33
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes, yeah. Next section. So, my Lords, this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Next section. So, my Lords, this is one area of the bill. Where the government has listened and has made government has listened and has made significant concessions in the light of the debate at the committee, at committee, the amendment in my name and not of my that of the noble Baroness Lady Bennett of Manor Castle challenged the government to think again about the removal of heritage protections currently provided within the Transport and Works Act. Now, I have re tabled the amendment, debated at committee in order to press noble Baroness the to Minister reconsider.
Our committee. Also, the noble Lord Parkinson provided up sorry proposed that clause 41 stand part as being the only route to providing important protection for our nation's heritage. The government amendment 49 is the answer to those strong arguments. The original clause 41 is deleted along with the schedule under replacement clause 41, tabled by the noble Baroness the minister at the core of the new clause 41 is the notion of deemed consent. The deemed consent route does not ensure that key heritage duties, such as the duty to have special regard to listed buildings and conservation areas, are included.
The Secretary of State therefore makes decisions on whether or not work to a listed building, scheduled monument, or in a conservation area can be given permission with the proviso of having due regard to this route does enable decisions on those. This used to be made more quickly, but it does, I think, fail the public engagement test, which we on these benches believe is important. However, given the changes proposed by the Minister, we are satisfied that there are protections for heritage sites and trust that all Secretaries of State will use their power with a special and high regard for our heritage.
I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed clause 41, page 54, line 22. Insert the words
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes, yeah. Next section. So, my Lords, this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Next section. So, my Lords, this is one area of the bill. Where the government has listened and has made government has listened and has made significant concessions in the light of the debate at the committee, at committee, the amendment in my name and not of my that of the noble Baroness Lady Bennett of Manor Castle challenged the government to think again about the removal of heritage protections currently provided within the Transport and Works Act. Now, I have re tabled the amendment, debated at committee in order to press noble Baroness the to Minister reconsider.
Our committee. Also, the noble Lord Parkinson provided up sorry proposed that clause 41 stand part as being the only route to providing important protection for our nation's heritage. The government amendment 49 is the answer to those strong arguments. The original clause 41 is deleted along with the schedule under replacement clause 41, tabled by the noble Baroness the minister at the core of the new clause 41 is the notion of deemed consent. The deemed consent route does not ensure that key heritage duties, such as the duty to have special regard to listed buildings and conservation areas, are included.
The Secretary of State therefore makes decisions on whether or not work to a listed building, scheduled monument, or in a conservation area can be given permission with the proviso of having due regard to this route does enable decisions on those. This used to be made more quickly, but it does, I think, fail the public engagement test, which we on these benches believe is important. However, given the changes proposed by the Minister, we are satisfied that there are protections for heritage sites and trust that all Secretaries of State will use their power with a special and high regard for our heritage.
I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed clause 41, page 54, line 22. Insert the words
11:36
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as printed on the marshalled list. I speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I speak. In place of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who is unable to be here today. She's hosting something that was set up
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hosting something that was set up months ago. As a former archaeologist, and. I am so annoyed at the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government's. Attempt to do this. You know I'm going to be annoyed all day. I've
**** Possible New Speaker ****
got to warn you, because some of the some. Of this bill is appalling, absolutely appalling. And so I very absolutely appalling. And so I very much support amendment 48 and I, I don't know if we're going to vote on it or not, but I will certainly be there in the content lobby.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as printed on the marshalled list. I speak.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I speak. In place of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who is unable to be here today. She's hosting something that was set up
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hosting something that was set up months ago. As a former archaeologist, and. I am so annoyed at the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government's. Attempt to do this. You know I'm going to be annoyed all day. I've
**** Possible New Speaker ****
got to warn you, because some of the some. Of this bill is appalling, absolutely appalling. And so I very absolutely appalling. And so I very much support amendment 48 and I, I don't know if we're going to vote on it or not, but I will certainly be there in the content lobby.
11:36
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
my Lords. the government tabled its own amendment 49. In this group, both seek, as the noble Baroness appendix as to leave out clause 41 of the bill, which I think it's fair to say, was the part of the bill which caused the most concern amongst heritage groups. And we heard in committee about the concerns that have been raised from bodies including the National Trust, the Heritage Alliance and the government's own heritage advisers, Historic England. And I'm pleased to say that the noble Lord Lord Henry of Richmond Hill, who responded to the debate in committee and as a man who cares both about our heritage and about innovation, very sensibly listened to that chorus of disapproval and undertook to take this matter away and look at it again in discussion with other ministers.
And so I was very pleased when I saw the government amendment, which the noble Baroness Lady Taylor of Stevenage has tabled in this group, which responds to the concerns raised in committee both in this House and in another place, and in the representations that have been made by heritage bodies. I welcome to the fact that she and the Heritage Minister, the noble Baroness Lady Twi Cross, have met heritage groups directly to discuss this and other aspects of the bill. I think that's very welcome and I understand it's going to be the first of a number of roundtables that they will will hold on this issue.
Heritage and the construction of new infrastructure are sometimes held up to be in competition, which of course, they are not, as noble Lord Hendy knows, for instance, from his time as chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, a proper celebration of our past can help to inspire and drive the innovation of the future. And as we heard in committee, if development is done in a way that respects the past, the vernacular of local communities, then it has greater support from those communities and is a much speedier as well as more welcome thing.
So having seen the government amendment, that's table, I will not press my amendment 50 here on report. And glad that the government have listened to the concerns that have been raised in these these debates.
And so I was very pleased when I saw the government amendment, which the noble Baroness Lady Taylor of Stevenage has tabled in this group, which responds to the concerns raised in committee both in this House and in another place, and in the representations that have been made by heritage bodies. I welcome to the fact that she and the Heritage Minister, the noble Baroness Lady Twi Cross, have met heritage groups directly to discuss this and other aspects of the bill. I think that's very welcome and I understand it's going to be the first of a number of roundtables that they will will hold on this issue.
Heritage and the construction of new infrastructure are sometimes held up to be in competition, which of course, they are not, as noble Lord Hendy knows, for instance, from his time as chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, a proper celebration of our past can help to inspire and drive the innovation of the future. And as we heard in committee, if development is done in a way that respects the past, the vernacular of local communities, then it has greater support from those communities and is a much speedier as well as more welcome thing.
So having seen the government amendment, that's table, I will not press my amendment 50 here on report. And glad that the government have listened to the concerns that have been raised in these these debates.
11:38
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
One of which.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 48, in the names of Baroness and Baroness Bennett, of. Mother of Manor Castle. No doubt
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mother of Manor Castle. No doubt there is concern about my support for them as I as I am. However, I think they've raised some very good think they've raised some very good points here and whilst I'm in complete agreement with my noble friend, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and his desire to delete clause one in its entirety, but now with the government's amendment, I think the noble Baronesses who have tabled the noble Baronesses who have tabled amendment 48 deserve some praise. We can all look at buildings or can all look at buildings or monuments or parts of the countryside.
I think these are wonderful and should not be built on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
wonderful and should not be built on valuable. Heritage determined by such random means. As the amendment makes random means. As the amendment makes clear in subsection B that structures and sites are designated structures and sites are designated for protection only, whether of special or particular historic or cultural significance, unquote. cultural significance, unquote. That's the key point. My Lords. These protected sites are not based on the subjective opinions of us or on the subjective opinions of us or local people, but on an objective determination using nationally approved criteria on what qualifies approved criteria on what qualifies a building for listed building protection or a scheduled monument or conservation area.
The amendment in subsection C merely asks that due regard is given to conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. The question is, how long will that new infrastructure last? Whereas I did a Google search and this is what I got. Typical building lifespan expectations for standard residential buildings. These often have a design life of 50 years, or possibly a maximum of 100 years. Commercial buildings. These can vary widely. Some modern commercial properties may be constructed with a short design life of those 20 or 30 years, while others like high quality concrete and steel structures, may be built to last 100 years or more.
Historical and monumental structures. With constant care, these buildings can last for hundreds or even thousands of years, as seen with some Roman structures. My lord, we destroy our history at our peril. It was Sir Winston Churchill who said we shape our buildings. Thereafter they shape us. On the one hand, we've got the magnificent House of Commons next door and this marvellous palace
**** Possible New Speaker ****
here. And the other we have some was appalling, but no doubt at the time. Award winning 1970s tower blocks.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are now flattening as quickly as possible because of the destructive effect they've had on the people who have been forced to the people who have been forced to reside in them. Now, no government would dare to demolish Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall or drive a road Hadrian's Wall or drive a road through it, but there are thousands of ancient buildings, my Lords, a vital part of our history which are vital part of our history which are not as famous or as sexy as Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall, but which also deserve protection, or at which also deserve protection, or at least very special consideration before they're demolished for some new construction.
My Lords, there are 9320 grade one listed buildings are 9320 grade one listed buildings in England and 21,782 grade two buildings. Now, it's estimated that buildings. Now, it's estimated that over a thousand of years, over a thousand of these buildings are over a thousand years old. Now. I cannot imagine any new development which would justify the destruction or damage of one of these buildings, except possibly a runway extension at Heathrow. Very, very few projects at Heathrow. Very, very few projects would justify now the noble Baroness noble Lady, a young Baroness Young of Old Scone has amendments down later on on protecting heritage trees, and we debated in in the committee and in HS2 bills saving ancient woodlands.
Once they're gone, they can never be replaced. And the same applies to conservation areas. Amendment 48 does not call for a complete ban, but merely to have regard to the needs to conserve our historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. And I do commend the noble Baronesses for tabling an amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 48, in the names of Baroness and Baroness Bennett, of. Mother of Manor Castle. No doubt
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mother of Manor Castle. No doubt there is concern about my support for them as I as I am. However, I think they've raised some very good think they've raised some very good points here and whilst I'm in complete agreement with my noble friend, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and his desire to delete clause one in its entirety, but now with the government's amendment, I think the noble Baronesses who have tabled the noble Baronesses who have tabled amendment 48 deserve some praise. We can all look at buildings or can all look at buildings or monuments or parts of the countryside.
I think these are wonderful and should not be built on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
wonderful and should not be built on valuable. Heritage determined by such random means. As the amendment makes random means. As the amendment makes clear in subsection B that structures and sites are designated structures and sites are designated for protection only, whether of special or particular historic or cultural significance, unquote. cultural significance, unquote. That's the key point. My Lords. These protected sites are not based on the subjective opinions of us or on the subjective opinions of us or local people, but on an objective determination using nationally approved criteria on what qualifies approved criteria on what qualifies a building for listed building protection or a scheduled monument or conservation area.
The amendment in subsection C merely asks that due regard is given to conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. The question is, how long will that new infrastructure last? Whereas I did a Google search and this is what I got. Typical building lifespan expectations for standard residential buildings. These often have a design life of 50 years, or possibly a maximum of 100 years. Commercial buildings. These can vary widely. Some modern commercial properties may be constructed with a short design life of those 20 or 30 years, while others like high quality concrete and steel structures, may be built to last 100 years or more.
Historical and monumental structures. With constant care, these buildings can last for hundreds or even thousands of years, as seen with some Roman structures. My lord, we destroy our history at our peril. It was Sir Winston Churchill who said we shape our buildings. Thereafter they shape us. On the one hand, we've got the magnificent House of Commons next door and this marvellous palace
**** Possible New Speaker ****
here. And the other we have some was appalling, but no doubt at the time. Award winning 1970s tower blocks.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are now flattening as quickly as possible because of the destructive effect they've had on the people who have been forced to the people who have been forced to reside in them. Now, no government would dare to demolish Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall or drive a road Hadrian's Wall or drive a road through it, but there are thousands of ancient buildings, my Lords, a vital part of our history which are vital part of our history which are not as famous or as sexy as Stonehenge or Hadrian's Wall, but which also deserve protection, or at which also deserve protection, or at least very special consideration before they're demolished for some new construction.
My Lords, there are 9320 grade one listed buildings are 9320 grade one listed buildings in England and 21,782 grade two buildings. Now, it's estimated that buildings. Now, it's estimated that over a thousand of years, over a thousand of these buildings are over a thousand years old. Now. I cannot imagine any new development which would justify the destruction or damage of one of these buildings, except possibly a runway extension at Heathrow. Very, very few projects at Heathrow. Very, very few projects would justify now the noble Baroness noble Lady, a young Baroness Young of Old Scone has amendments down later on on protecting heritage trees, and we debated in in the committee and in HS2 bills saving ancient woodlands.
Once they're gone, they can never be replaced. And the same applies to conservation areas. Amendment 48 does not call for a complete ban, but merely to have regard to the needs to conserve our historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. And I do commend the noble Baronesses for tabling an amendment
11:44
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
and bringing it to the attention of and bringing it to the attention of the House. My Lords, I can't resist a brief anecdote. When the Inner a brief anecdote. When the Inner Ring Road was being built around Birmingham city centre in the 1960s, the Highways department at the Highways department at Birmingham City Council approached the arch Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham and said that Birmingham and said that unfortunately, both the Pugin designed Catholic Cathedral and the designed Catholic Cathedral and the Pugin designed Archbishop's House next door to it, would have to go to next door to it, would have to go to make way for the road.
The Archbishop entered a modest word of protest against this loss, clearing protest against this loss, clearing if it was entirely necessary, and the result was that the courteous gentleman of the highways department went away and rethought their plans somewhat, and gave him the choice. somewhat, and gave him the choice. He could either lose the cathedral. The Pugin designed cathedral, or the The Pugin designed cathedral, or the Pugin designed House, which explains why, to this day the cathedral still stands, but the House has long since stands, but the House has long since gone.
Now, happily, that approach to heritage is not something that we heritage is not something that we would see today, and I wish merely at this point to congratulate those members of your Lordships House who have spoke so clearly and valiantly against the original proposal in the Bill, and thank the government for listening, because what was originally proposed really was unsustainable. And what we have now is a great deal more acceptable. is a great deal more acceptable.
The Archbishop entered a modest word of protest against this loss, clearing protest against this loss, clearing if it was entirely necessary, and the result was that the courteous gentleman of the highways department went away and rethought their plans somewhat, and gave him the choice. somewhat, and gave him the choice. He could either lose the cathedral. The Pugin designed cathedral, or the The Pugin designed cathedral, or the Pugin designed House, which explains why, to this day the cathedral still stands, but the House has long since stands, but the House has long since gone.
Now, happily, that approach to heritage is not something that we heritage is not something that we would see today, and I wish merely at this point to congratulate those members of your Lordships House who have spoke so clearly and valiantly against the original proposal in the Bill, and thank the government for listening, because what was originally proposed really was unsustainable. And what we have now is a great deal more acceptable. is a great deal more acceptable.
11:44
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
My Lord, sir, I rise to move the government amendments 49, 51, 66, 258 and two six. Oh, and to speak on amendments 48 and 50. I'd like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson and the noble Baronesses Lady Pelican, Lady Bennett, as well as others who have raised this issue during the Bill's passage. I'd also like to thank peers for their time during recess, where we did discuss this matter at length. As I've noted previously, the government has no interest in loosening heritage protections, and indeed, we see this country's heritage assets as a vital part of our built environment.
We're clear that these assets should be conserved and enhanced their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Amendments we have laid to the Bill in relation to heritage and the Transport and Works Act order process will ensure that there is no loss of heritage protection, whilst achieving the government's goal of streamlining the process to get on with delivering the infrastructure that this country needs. Through this amendment, we've introduced a new power for the Secretary of State in England to direct that listed building consent is deemed to be granted in relation to Transport and Works Act order projects.
This new power follows the same model as the existing long established power for them to direct. That planning permission is deemed to be granted for these projects. This means that in practice, applicants applying for a Transport and Works Act order can apply for deemed listed building consent at the same time, rather than having to apply separately to the local planning authority, and this will streamline the process when considering whether to direct grant of deemed listing building listed building consent, the Secretary of State will be under the same special regard to preservation duty under the Listed Buildings Act that the local planning authority would ordinarily be under on a listed building application had it been made to then.
Likewise, where relevant, the same special attention statutory duties in respect of conservation areas will also apply. We've also extended the special regard duties under the Listed Buildings Act. To ensure that these apply to decision makers, considering whether to direct the grant of deemed planning permission, including under Transport and Works Act orders. These amendments mean there will be no reduction in statutory protection for heritage assets, and that decision makers will continue to need to give full consideration to the impact of works on listed buildings and other heritage assets as they would under the current system.
I hope that's reassuring to the noble Lord Bill and Catherine, with the consent of the Welsh Government. The amendments will also extend this approach to heritage consents to Wales, reflecting the specific heritage framework where Welsh ministers will have the power to direct both deemed listed building consent and deemed Conservation Area consent for Transport and Works Act projects in Wales. As a result of these amendments, and following their indications that they will do so, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments which seek to achieve the same outcome as we have in the government.
Amendments. I beg in the government. Amendments. I beg to move. My Lord. Thanks very much to the noble Baroness Minister for to the noble Baroness Minister for the long discussion that we had during recess on this, this issue during recess on this, this issue and her commitment then to introduce and her commitment then to introduce a new clause which, in my view, has responded appropriately and fully to responded appropriately and fully to the concerns that were expressed under those safeguards for our under those safeguards for our heritage.
I beg leave to withdraw Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. It is by.
We're clear that these assets should be conserved and enhanced their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations. Amendments we have laid to the Bill in relation to heritage and the Transport and Works Act order process will ensure that there is no loss of heritage protection, whilst achieving the government's goal of streamlining the process to get on with delivering the infrastructure that this country needs. Through this amendment, we've introduced a new power for the Secretary of State in England to direct that listed building consent is deemed to be granted in relation to Transport and Works Act order projects.
This new power follows the same model as the existing long established power for them to direct. That planning permission is deemed to be granted for these projects. This means that in practice, applicants applying for a Transport and Works Act order can apply for deemed listed building consent at the same time, rather than having to apply separately to the local planning authority, and this will streamline the process when considering whether to direct grant of deemed listing building listed building consent, the Secretary of State will be under the same special regard to preservation duty under the Listed Buildings Act that the local planning authority would ordinarily be under on a listed building application had it been made to then.
Likewise, where relevant, the same special attention statutory duties in respect of conservation areas will also apply. We've also extended the special regard duties under the Listed Buildings Act. To ensure that these apply to decision makers, considering whether to direct the grant of deemed planning permission, including under Transport and Works Act orders. These amendments mean there will be no reduction in statutory protection for heritage assets, and that decision makers will continue to need to give full consideration to the impact of works on listed buildings and other heritage assets as they would under the current system.
I hope that's reassuring to the noble Lord Bill and Catherine, with the consent of the Welsh Government. The amendments will also extend this approach to heritage consents to Wales, reflecting the specific heritage framework where Welsh ministers will have the power to direct both deemed listed building consent and deemed Conservation Area consent for Transport and Works Act projects in Wales. As a result of these amendments, and following their indications that they will do so, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments which seek to achieve the same outcome as we have in the government.
Amendments. I beg in the government. Amendments. I beg to move. My Lord. Thanks very much to the noble Baroness Minister for to the noble Baroness Minister for the long discussion that we had during recess on this, this issue during recess on this, this issue and her commitment then to introduce and her commitment then to introduce a new clause which, in my view, has responded appropriately and fully to responded appropriately and fully to the concerns that were expressed under those safeguards for our under those safeguards for our heritage.
I beg leave to withdraw Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. It is by.
11:48
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
The by leave the floor. Amendment 49 new. Formally, the question is I should inform your Lordships that if amendment 49 is agreed to, I'm unable to call amendment 50 for reasons of pre-emption. The question is then amendment 4049 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion, say 'content' contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 51 move formally, the question is the amendment 51 be agreed to as many as are of that opinion say, content conference not content.
The contents
The contents
11:50
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
have it in clause 47, amendment 52. Baroness Pidgeon. Thank you. Baroness Pidgeon. Thank you. Amendments 52 and 57 are my two amendments, which aim to make it easier for people who do not have driveways to be able to switch to an electric vehicle and install the necessary infrastructure so they can charge from their home, thus charge from their home, thus benefiting from VAT free electricity charging. Now, amendment 52 allows for cross pavement solutions to be for cross pavement solutions to be considered as public chargepoints to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for people to move to electric for people to move to electric vehicles at home.
And amendment 57 then extends permitted developments. Development relating to electric vehicle chargepoints, where there is an agreed cross pavement charging an agreed cross pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15cm. Now, up to 40% of households in the UK do not have access to off street parking, and therefore they street parking, and therefore they rely on public chargepoints, which can cost up to ten times more than can cost up to ten times more than charging at home.
And a recent survey by the Electric Vehicle Association England highlights that, Association England highlights that, generally speaking, drivers without off street parking are more likely to rent, earn less, live in concentrated urban areas. They are less likely to switch to an electric vehicle, and among those who have, they are generally less confident in electric vehicle ownership and more concerned about the costs. So this amendment would help to democratise access to electric vehicles and reduce inequalities. And as I highlighted at committee stage, cross pavement solutions have real potential to help tackle this challenge.
But the current costs of installation can be around £3,000 and could take 12 to 15 months for a decision from a local authority. Now, only this month in Northern Ireland, residents can now apply for cross pavement electric vehicle charging channels through just a simple online form. Residents can apply for the channels that would allow for residents with electric vehicles to reduce charging costs there from around £25 at a typical ChargePoint to just £3, we need to make it as simple and easy to access in the rest of the country, too.
So these amendments are seeking to make the transition to electric fair and easy, and I have been encouraged by discussions with the noble Open Minister about this issue since committee stage, and look forward to hearing if any progress can be made to help people without driveways to transition to electric vehicles more easily and affordably. Now, whilst I'm on my feet in terms of the other amendments in this group, Lord Warwick's Amendment 55, this has come late in the day, so I would be interested to hear from the noble Lord, the Minister, on this important area of accessibility and charge points, and I won't waste the House's time on the new amendments, adding more bureaucracy to the transition to green vehicles.
I beg to made.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The proposed. Clause 47, page 59,
And amendment 57 then extends permitted developments. Development relating to electric vehicle chargepoints, where there is an agreed cross pavement charging an agreed cross pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15cm. Now, up to 40% of households in the UK do not have access to off street parking, and therefore they street parking, and therefore they rely on public chargepoints, which can cost up to ten times more than can cost up to ten times more than charging at home.
And a recent survey by the Electric Vehicle Association England highlights that, Association England highlights that, generally speaking, drivers without off street parking are more likely to rent, earn less, live in concentrated urban areas. They are less likely to switch to an electric vehicle, and among those who have, they are generally less confident in electric vehicle ownership and more concerned about the costs. So this amendment would help to democratise access to electric vehicles and reduce inequalities. And as I highlighted at committee stage, cross pavement solutions have real potential to help tackle this challenge.
But the current costs of installation can be around £3,000 and could take 12 to 15 months for a decision from a local authority. Now, only this month in Northern Ireland, residents can now apply for cross pavement electric vehicle charging channels through just a simple online form. Residents can apply for the channels that would allow for residents with electric vehicles to reduce charging costs there from around £25 at a typical ChargePoint to just £3, we need to make it as simple and easy to access in the rest of the country, too.
So these amendments are seeking to make the transition to electric fair and easy, and I have been encouraged by discussions with the noble Open Minister about this issue since committee stage, and look forward to hearing if any progress can be made to help people without driveways to transition to electric vehicles more easily and affordably. Now, whilst I'm on my feet in terms of the other amendments in this group, Lord Warwick's Amendment 55, this has come late in the day, so I would be interested to hear from the noble Lord, the Minister, on this important area of accessibility and charge points, and I won't waste the House's time on the new amendments, adding more bureaucracy to the transition to green vehicles.
I beg to made.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The proposed. Clause 47, page 59,
11:52
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The proposed. Clause 47, page 59, line 18. At the end, insert the words as printed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
words as printed. Would I rise to speak to my amendments 53 and 54, in this group, amendments 53 and 54, in this group, which are noble Baroness Lady Pigeon disdains to address. So that leaves it to me to explain what they do. Amendment 53 would require local authorities to conduct and publish a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charge point works that may displace general use parking to ensure that the wider motoring public is not disproportionately affected by the transition to electric infrastructure.
Amendment 54 seeks to ensure that residents and businesses can request a review where EV installations, proposed EV installations reduce access to conventional parking. My concern, my Lords, is that government does not appear fully to appreciate the practical and societal risks of its current approach. Across the country, we are seeing residents, particularly in towns and suburbs, finding that parking spaces they have relied upon for years are being removed or repurposed for electric vehicle charging days without consideration of local needs.
Of course, the argument that it is that this is all in the service of the transition to electric vehicles. So there that transition does appear to be stalling. If we take note of the number of electric vehicles being sold and what the take up is. But for many people, and there is a class element to this, especially those who cannot afford an electric vehicle dependency on a petrol or diesel driven vehicle for getting to work and fulfilling the requirements of daily life and making a living is absolutely essential and provision has to continue for those we are in danger of pushing out from parking access people, poor people who desperately need people on low incomes who desperately need a car in order to make space for the for the better off families.
Second, Tesla for the nanny to use. That cannot be that cannot be equitable, can it? Surely. And so what is proposed here, as I say, is an impact assessment. No prohibition. And the opportunity for people to ask for a review. As I say, the benefits flow directly in one direction. The noble Lord, the Minister said in committee that we must ensure our regulatory framework is enabling rather than encumbering. I agree, but I'd ask enabling for whom and at what cost? The transition that we're aiming at has to be fair and balanced and practical, and these amendments would simply introduce a modest, reasonable safeguard to ensure that the wider motoring public is not unduly disadvantaged, advantaged, disadvantaged as infrastructure for electric vehicles are rolled out now, amendments 52 and 57.
Because I am willing to address the amendments proposed by the neighbour Baroness Lady Pidgeon, even though she she won't be bothered to address mine, raise the same issue that I have highly highlighted by allowing private charging points to extend into the public sphere. These measures would in effect, reserve and privatise particular road space for the benefit of particular residents and exclude the general public from parking in those bays even when they were free. Now, perhaps some means to be found whereby the general public could park in them when they were free.
But nobody has proposed what this mechanism is, and I think it's incumbent on the noble Baroness to address this question. In a world where there is limitless parking space, of course, these these issues wouldn't arise, but her amendments are aimed specifically at those places where you have relatively high density places where properties don't have their own driveway or or onsite parking space, tend to be those with higher levels of density. Those are the ones she wants to address and very often are more mixed economically.
And as I say, that question of equity is an that question of equity is an important one as well.
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The proposed. Clause 47, page 59, line 18. At the end, insert the words as printed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
words as printed. Would I rise to speak to my amendments 53 and 54, in this group, amendments 53 and 54, in this group, which are noble Baroness Lady Pigeon disdains to address. So that leaves it to me to explain what they do. Amendment 53 would require local authorities to conduct and publish a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charge point works that may displace general use parking to ensure that the wider motoring public is not disproportionately affected by the transition to electric infrastructure.
Amendment 54 seeks to ensure that residents and businesses can request a review where EV installations, proposed EV installations reduce access to conventional parking. My concern, my Lords, is that government does not appear fully to appreciate the practical and societal risks of its current approach. Across the country, we are seeing residents, particularly in towns and suburbs, finding that parking spaces they have relied upon for years are being removed or repurposed for electric vehicle charging days without consideration of local needs.
Of course, the argument that it is that this is all in the service of the transition to electric vehicles. So there that transition does appear to be stalling. If we take note of the number of electric vehicles being sold and what the take up is. But for many people, and there is a class element to this, especially those who cannot afford an electric vehicle dependency on a petrol or diesel driven vehicle for getting to work and fulfilling the requirements of daily life and making a living is absolutely essential and provision has to continue for those we are in danger of pushing out from parking access people, poor people who desperately need people on low incomes who desperately need a car in order to make space for the for the better off families.
Second, Tesla for the nanny to use. That cannot be that cannot be equitable, can it? Surely. And so what is proposed here, as I say, is an impact assessment. No prohibition. And the opportunity for people to ask for a review. As I say, the benefits flow directly in one direction. The noble Lord, the Minister said in committee that we must ensure our regulatory framework is enabling rather than encumbering. I agree, but I'd ask enabling for whom and at what cost? The transition that we're aiming at has to be fair and balanced and practical, and these amendments would simply introduce a modest, reasonable safeguard to ensure that the wider motoring public is not unduly disadvantaged, advantaged, disadvantaged as infrastructure for electric vehicles are rolled out now, amendments 52 and 57.
Because I am willing to address the amendments proposed by the neighbour Baroness Lady Pidgeon, even though she she won't be bothered to address mine, raise the same issue that I have highly highlighted by allowing private charging points to extend into the public sphere. These measures would in effect, reserve and privatise particular road space for the benefit of particular residents and exclude the general public from parking in those bays even when they were free. Now, perhaps some means to be found whereby the general public could park in them when they were free.
But nobody has proposed what this mechanism is, and I think it's incumbent on the noble Baroness to address this question. In a world where there is limitless parking space, of course, these these issues wouldn't arise, but her amendments are aimed specifically at those places where you have relatively high density places where properties don't have their own driveway or or onsite parking space, tend to be those with higher levels of density. Those are the ones she wants to address and very often are more mixed economically.
And as I say, that question of equity is an that question of equity is an important one as well.
11:57
Lord Borwick (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Borwick (Conservative)
my Lords, I first declare my interests as a taxi proprietor and driver of a wheelchair accessible taxi. The reason that it's wheelchair accessible is that I introduce that feature into the manufacture of taxis. When I ran that business, I also introduced bus ramps to make low floor buses accessible, and for some years round, the powered, wheelchair financed business of Motability. Also, I was an electric vehicle entrepreneur making an electric delivery vehicle, a business I started in 2004.
I also declare that my wife and I have an eldest son who is disabled with learning learning difficulties. The reason for my amendment number 55. Follows solicitor. The statistic that in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this country, less than 3%. Of public electric. Vehicle charging points are considered safe and reliable for considered safe and reliable for drivers with accessibility needs. Without the protective measures I am Without the protective measures I am putting forward, drivers with disabilities will likely see no end to the struggle of charging their to the struggle of charging their car safely and reliably. This is an essential activity. It should not be yet another barrier for disabled individuals to carry out their day to day lives.
This amendment is to day lives. This amendment is modest in scope but vital in purpose. It would surely give the purpose. It would surely give the government the power, if needed, in the future, to make compliance with existing accessibility standards existing accessibility standards obligatory. It is an enabling measure, not an immediate measure, not an immediate imposition. Many EV drivers rely on the public network to charge their the public network to charge their car. We know that around 40% of UK households do not have a driveway, households do not have a driveway, for instance, and therefore have no easy access to home charging.
We easy access to home charging. We also know that disability and poverty are strongly correlated, meaning drivers with disabilities meaning drivers with disabilities are even less likely to own a private driveway and a home charger. It is therefore deeply troubling that most of the public network is unable to meet even basic accessibility needs, according to Iva England, nearly half of all drivers with or without disabilities have experienced problems using public chargepoints. They cite heavy cables, high kerbs, obstructed bays and payment terminals.
The too high or awkwardly placed for many disabled drivers. These are not small irritations, but complete barriers to participation. In the month of July, electric vehicles made up around 25% of new sales. But then the Motability scheme, supporting drivers with disabilities. They represented 12%, less than half. Why are disabled people not choosing electric vehicles? Because they can't recharge them? Indeed, a full quarter of Motability drivers say they avoid public charges entirely because of accessibility issues.
That is not a future issue, but a crisis of access. Now, the Department for transport took an important step in 2022 by publishing a accessibility standard, Pass 1899, designed to address these issues. However, as of today, hardly any public chargepoints meet that standard, largely because the parts and design requirements have yet to be fully adopted by industry. A revised version is being developed with input from consumer groups and manufacturers, and is expected to offer a workable compromise between what industry can deliver and what disabled drivers need.
But when it comes, it will again be entirely voluntary. My Lords experience tells us what happens next. None of the major consumer protections for ChargePoint users on transparency or of pricing, reliability or contactless payment were taken up voluntarily by industry. Government ultimately had to regulate, and it took seven years from securing those prop powers for the regulations to take effect. In a teams called the noble Lord, the minister and officials. Yesterday we worked out that the timescale proposed by the Department for the adoption of universally accessible charging points could similarly be at least seven years.
This modest amendment could take at least two years off that scandalous timescale. Perhaps noble Lords will agree with me that it should be adopted enthusiastically. This amendment would ensure that the government is ready to act if and when voluntary compliance fails. It applies only to new chargepoints and would not take effect unless until the clear is clear evidence that industry has not delivered. It gives ministers a proportionate future proof of power, nothing more, but nothing less. To be clear, the failure to ensure vital accessibility needs are met is not the fault of the government.
Either this one or the last. It is that we emitted a duty to design charging infrastructure for these needs out of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act. My amendment puts it back in. I apologise to the House that it was not mentioned in the Second Reading or proposed at committee stage, but it was proposed in the other place. So I urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to make this change for disability by accepting this amendment from his own previous work supporting mobility and transport measures during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, he will be well aware that accessibility needs must be a forefront consideration, not an afterthought.
It is my hope that this does not go to a vote and that Minister will accept the pragmatic measures presented in this amendment, but I reserved the right to divide the House if I am unhappy. My Lords, this is about fairness and foresight, making sure that we as we move to electric driving, no one is left behind, least of all the 1.35 million disabled drivers who already face greater challenges in their daily mobility. I hope the Minister will recognise that this is not an onerous burden on industry, but a prudent and compassionate step to ensure a charging network that works for everyone.
I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are my and my Lords advice is very. Briefly to support the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. And I'm absolutely delighted that he's tabled it as a
I also declare that my wife and I have an eldest son who is disabled with learning learning difficulties. The reason for my amendment number 55. Follows solicitor. The statistic that in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this country, less than 3%. Of public electric. Vehicle charging points are considered safe and reliable for considered safe and reliable for drivers with accessibility needs. Without the protective measures I am Without the protective measures I am putting forward, drivers with disabilities will likely see no end to the struggle of charging their to the struggle of charging their car safely and reliably. This is an essential activity. It should not be yet another barrier for disabled individuals to carry out their day to day lives.
This amendment is to day lives. This amendment is modest in scope but vital in purpose. It would surely give the purpose. It would surely give the government the power, if needed, in the future, to make compliance with existing accessibility standards existing accessibility standards obligatory. It is an enabling measure, not an immediate measure, not an immediate imposition. Many EV drivers rely on the public network to charge their the public network to charge their car. We know that around 40% of UK households do not have a driveway, households do not have a driveway, for instance, and therefore have no easy access to home charging.
We easy access to home charging. We also know that disability and poverty are strongly correlated, meaning drivers with disabilities meaning drivers with disabilities are even less likely to own a private driveway and a home charger. It is therefore deeply troubling that most of the public network is unable to meet even basic accessibility needs, according to Iva England, nearly half of all drivers with or without disabilities have experienced problems using public chargepoints. They cite heavy cables, high kerbs, obstructed bays and payment terminals.
The too high or awkwardly placed for many disabled drivers. These are not small irritations, but complete barriers to participation. In the month of July, electric vehicles made up around 25% of new sales. But then the Motability scheme, supporting drivers with disabilities. They represented 12%, less than half. Why are disabled people not choosing electric vehicles? Because they can't recharge them? Indeed, a full quarter of Motability drivers say they avoid public charges entirely because of accessibility issues.
That is not a future issue, but a crisis of access. Now, the Department for transport took an important step in 2022 by publishing a accessibility standard, Pass 1899, designed to address these issues. However, as of today, hardly any public chargepoints meet that standard, largely because the parts and design requirements have yet to be fully adopted by industry. A revised version is being developed with input from consumer groups and manufacturers, and is expected to offer a workable compromise between what industry can deliver and what disabled drivers need.
But when it comes, it will again be entirely voluntary. My Lords experience tells us what happens next. None of the major consumer protections for ChargePoint users on transparency or of pricing, reliability or contactless payment were taken up voluntarily by industry. Government ultimately had to regulate, and it took seven years from securing those prop powers for the regulations to take effect. In a teams called the noble Lord, the minister and officials. Yesterday we worked out that the timescale proposed by the Department for the adoption of universally accessible charging points could similarly be at least seven years.
This modest amendment could take at least two years off that scandalous timescale. Perhaps noble Lords will agree with me that it should be adopted enthusiastically. This amendment would ensure that the government is ready to act if and when voluntary compliance fails. It applies only to new chargepoints and would not take effect unless until the clear is clear evidence that industry has not delivered. It gives ministers a proportionate future proof of power, nothing more, but nothing less. To be clear, the failure to ensure vital accessibility needs are met is not the fault of the government.
Either this one or the last. It is that we emitted a duty to design charging infrastructure for these needs out of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act. My amendment puts it back in. I apologise to the House that it was not mentioned in the Second Reading or proposed at committee stage, but it was proposed in the other place. So I urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to make this change for disability by accepting this amendment from his own previous work supporting mobility and transport measures during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, he will be well aware that accessibility needs must be a forefront consideration, not an afterthought.
It is my hope that this does not go to a vote and that Minister will accept the pragmatic measures presented in this amendment, but I reserved the right to divide the House if I am unhappy. My Lords, this is about fairness and foresight, making sure that we as we move to electric driving, no one is left behind, least of all the 1.35 million disabled drivers who already face greater challenges in their daily mobility. I hope the Minister will recognise that this is not an onerous burden on industry, but a prudent and compassionate step to ensure a charging network that works for everyone.
I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are my and my Lords advice is very. Briefly to support the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. And I'm absolutely delighted that he's tabled it as a
12:04
Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
delighted that he's tabled it as a disabled person. I have to say, the guidance on accessible charging is not worth very much. Because it hasn't really made an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Because it hasn't really made an impact on my ability to move to an electric car. And I totally agree about the barriers that he's about the barriers that he's mentioned in terms of race kerbs, gravel, or indeed poorly lit charging stations, or even lack of accessible bays. So for me to use a charging station, I need to be able to open the door of my car to the widest possible point. Because my Chair comes apart, the wheels come off the frame and the wheels sit on my front seat, so I do not want to damage any of the cars while I'm getting in and out.
And it doesn't take me much longer than a non-disabled person to do so. But when I considered or tried very hard several times to move to an electric vehicle, it proved impossible. The first time I tried to move to electric vehicle, I was very close to signing the paperwork. I went and had a look in my local area and there wasn't an accessible charging station within at least 30 miles of my House, which was not particularly useful. The advice from the garage was, perhaps I should just take someone with me wherever I went, and they could get in and out of the car to charge it for me.
But the problems go deeper than that because as we're seeing charging stations develop, I've also seen them take over accessible bays. And one time I set a service station. Admittedly, it was a very busy time to look at how much longer it would take me to charge my car because I need a wider bay, and it was significantly longer than the place that I was in the queue. So what I'm really worried about is the impact that this is going to have if we don't do something now on disabled people now, I recognise there are probably changes coming to the Motability scheme.
I do not have a motability car, but I do receive Personal Independence payment. But on their books there's a increasing number of electric vehicles where it's available and they are moving cars that a lot of disabled people can drive. So this is again cutting down people's choices and options. There is also a lack of wheelchair accessible vehicles that are electric that allow a tailgate lift. So if someone has an electric Chair that again is shutting down their options and making it really difficult, I would like to offer some praise to Newport Council that I recently visited, and they've done an absolutely amazing job of not just providing accessible charging stations, but lots of different options within their car parks.
And this is a real model that I think we should be able to take forward. But that is because they've looked at the guidance, recognised it's not going to help disabled people and gone above and beyond, but that is one council that has done it. The sadly lack, you know, gaps all over the rest of the country and ultimately my Lords. I do not want disabled people to be blamed for not caring about the environment as they were when plastic straws were banned. Disabled people experienced a massive backlash for that because they were told they were going to be murdering turtles, and dolphins were actually plastic.
Straws were the only means that they people, many people could drink. And we can see that already where disabled people are being accused of not caring about the environment and not making the switch, rather than they want to make the switch, but they're just not able to. So with that in mind, I very strongly support this amendment and really believe that we have to do something possible to make it possible for disabled people to switch to electric vehicles.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
delighted that he's tabled it as a disabled person. I have to say, the guidance on accessible charging is not worth very much. Because it hasn't really made an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Because it hasn't really made an impact on my ability to move to an electric car. And I totally agree about the barriers that he's about the barriers that he's mentioned in terms of race kerbs, gravel, or indeed poorly lit charging stations, or even lack of accessible bays. So for me to use a charging station, I need to be able to open the door of my car to the widest possible point. Because my Chair comes apart, the wheels come off the frame and the wheels sit on my front seat, so I do not want to damage any of the cars while I'm getting in and out.
And it doesn't take me much longer than a non-disabled person to do so. But when I considered or tried very hard several times to move to an electric vehicle, it proved impossible. The first time I tried to move to electric vehicle, I was very close to signing the paperwork. I went and had a look in my local area and there wasn't an accessible charging station within at least 30 miles of my House, which was not particularly useful. The advice from the garage was, perhaps I should just take someone with me wherever I went, and they could get in and out of the car to charge it for me.
But the problems go deeper than that because as we're seeing charging stations develop, I've also seen them take over accessible bays. And one time I set a service station. Admittedly, it was a very busy time to look at how much longer it would take me to charge my car because I need a wider bay, and it was significantly longer than the place that I was in the queue. So what I'm really worried about is the impact that this is going to have if we don't do something now on disabled people now, I recognise there are probably changes coming to the Motability scheme.
I do not have a motability car, but I do receive Personal Independence payment. But on their books there's a increasing number of electric vehicles where it's available and they are moving cars that a lot of disabled people can drive. So this is again cutting down people's choices and options. There is also a lack of wheelchair accessible vehicles that are electric that allow a tailgate lift. So if someone has an electric Chair that again is shutting down their options and making it really difficult, I would like to offer some praise to Newport Council that I recently visited, and they've done an absolutely amazing job of not just providing accessible charging stations, but lots of different options within their car parks.
And this is a real model that I think we should be able to take forward. But that is because they've looked at the guidance, recognised it's not going to help disabled people and gone above and beyond, but that is one council that has done it. The sadly lack, you know, gaps all over the rest of the country and ultimately my Lords. I do not want disabled people to be blamed for not caring about the environment as they were when plastic straws were banned. Disabled people experienced a massive backlash for that because they were told they were going to be murdering turtles, and dolphins were actually plastic.
Straws were the only means that they people, many people could drink. And we can see that already where disabled people are being accused of not caring about the environment and not making the switch, rather than they want to make the switch, but they're just not able to. So with that in mind, I very strongly support this amendment and really believe that we have to do something possible to make it possible for disabled people to switch to electric vehicles.
12:07
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
354 and 55 and express some concern about amendment A 52 now a noble friend. The Lord Moylan is absolutely right to call for an impact assessment before local authorities go overboard with removing non-electric car spaces in an obsessive drive for electric vehicle charging points. There are 2.6 million plug in cars in the UK that includes hybrids and fully electric 5% of the total, but there are 33 million petrol and diesel cars in the UK. AutoTrader issued a report in July this year stating that the current sales trajectory of new electric cars would see just 45% market share by 2030, well below the 80% projected and mandated target set by the government.
Now, personal my Lords I prefer to trust auto traders expert analysis rather than government wish list projections. So what are the government? So what are the government projections by 2030? The UK government believes we could have been approximately 8,000,012 million hybrid vehicles or electric cars if uptake aligns with government targets. By 2014, the number could reach 25 million, according to the Local Government Association. And by 2050, some projections aligned with the UK's net zero goals. I submit up to 37.4 million electric vehicles.
If we go flat out on net zero. So, my Lords, we have a 11 million, we might have 11 million hybrid cars if the uptake aligns with government targets. But my Lords, at the present moment, we now see that those targets are 100% out already, just as the government's heat pump projections are about 500% out. It's all wishful thinking in the nicest possible way, but it's wishful thinking. But the big danger here in my Lords is where is where my Noble Friends amendment are.
They're absolutely spot. All is a local government association projection of 25 million electric cars by 2040. Now, where on earth does the LGU get that information from? What does the LGA know about forecasting electric car uptake? And the only people who can do that are the car manufacturers, the dealers, others in the trade have got their finger on the pulse of buyer motivation. Understand battery replacement cost, Chinese cheap car penetration, trade in values, etc. If local authorities take up the projections of the local government association, if they take them seriously as they are likely to do, then we will see twice as many non electric car parking spaces ripped out and connected, and we'll have electric car places instead of them, and that projection will be wrong.
The I simply ask you cast your mind back to 2020, when everyone thought that electric vehicles were the bee's knees and would rapidly replace petrol and diesel cars. In 2019, the Department of Transport forecasts there would be 1.5 million electric cars by the end of 2020. The actual figure was that at the end of 2020, there were approximately 431,000 ultra low emission vehicles, and that includes battery electric and fully electric. That is one third of the government projections and my Lords are simply what would have happened then if local authorities actually had the money and the resources to implement those flawed projections.
Well, thank goodness they didn't have the money to do it either. Would have removed thousands of conventional car parking spaces and install three times more electric charging points than there were cars. That is why it is essential that local authorities follow the measure. And my noble friend's amendments. We must have a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charging points, which would replace general use parking, and businesses and residents must have the power to request a review where EV installations reduce conventional parking.
We have seen local authorities ride roughshod over local residents with their closing of roads, ridiculously low speed restrictions, and I have no doubt that many will ignore the needs of petrol and car drivers in the fanatical pursuit of electric cars. Now, my Lords, I also strongly support my Noble friend Lord Berwick's Amendment 55 and I congratulate him on all the work he has done with London cabs over the years, making them accessible. I, and thousands of other people in London would never be able to move anywhere around this city if it was not for the ramps, which he insisted on building into electric cars, into London cars.
And the new, longer ramps are just superb now. My lowest, most charging points I've seen seem to be about one metre above the pavement and theoretically should be accessible for disabled motorists. However, if a disabled motorist is one of those who uses a wheelchair adapted vehicle, then I've seen many charging points which are not usable and I congratulate my friend Baroness Jay Thompson for the excellent speech she has just made, setting out many of the deficiencies she has faced. Now. In 2018, it was calculated with the number of vehicles adopted or converted for wheelchair users was about 400,000, but that includes drivers and passengers, so it's a relatively small number in comparison to the 30 million other vehicles on the road.
But first Lord, if you're a wheelchair user, there needs to be a dropped kerb. So imagine you are a wheelchair user in a car, a driveway. There's only two ways to use it. You either get a ramp at the back to get out and in, or a little lift and hoist, then to go to the driver's seat. So the first decision you've got to make if you see an electric charging point is do you drive in in such a way that you're exiting onto the street and taking the risk there? Or you have to turn the vehicle round so your driver's seat is next to the car? If that's the case, Molloy's there needs to be a dropped kerb nearby so that the wheelchair user can get out of the vehicle and get onto the pavement, not suggesting that every charging point must have a dropped kerb, but one nearby.
Then the charging plug must not face the street or cars, and so a wheelchair user can't get round to that site to use it. It's not rocket science below. It's not expensive to make sure that all plug in points either face the pavement or at right angles to it, or at least don't face the street. Whilst I have no solution for the scenario where the for the plug in car is in the middle of the bonnet or the boot, and the wheelchair user can plug it in, OK, but then kind of get onto the pavement to plug it in at the other end.
The latest statistics are that plugs on cars are in the rear. This is the most frequent location where 37% of vehicles in the electric vehicles in the UK configured that way. Plug in in the rear on a yes. On the right wing, yes on the left rear. This is the second most common spot found in 31% of vehicles. And on the left front that's less common still, but 18% of vehicles. So my Lords the wheelchair user has to get either the left rear right ear of the front to plug it in, then has to get on the pavement to plug it into the socket there.
So I, I do believe that my, my, my noble friend Lord is absolutely right. And if the government does not give this simple concession, I do hope he will push his amendment to the vote. Find my Lords I flagged my concern at the mention of cross pavement charging points to say. Suffice it to say that in my short journeys here in the Lords and my trusty chariot, I battle daily with e-bikes and scooters dumped on the pavement or parked anywhere on the pavement.
Then one contends with temporary construction work, which necessitates cables and pipes crossing the pavement. Now it can be fair. In nearly every case, the construction companies cover them up with temporary cable ramps or protectors. But in about 50% of the cases, they're so high in lumpy and protruding, I can't get a wheelchair over them, and I sometimes get grounded trying to cross over them. However, my lawyers, these construction companies know they're law and they try to safeguard pedestrians. But will we see the same restraint on care when there may be millions of cables crossing the pavement, not laid and protected by construction companies, but by some of the perhaps couldn't care less drivers who parked on the pavement at the moment, or the cyclists who drive on the pavement and dump their electric bikes there below.
I will say no more on that, but I do urge the government to ensure that in future, if they've got charging points on the pavement, that they take steps to make sure that the cables crossing the pavement are not dangerous for all disabled users, whether in wheelchairs or walking or blind. So I do hope we can have assurances on that point. that point.
Now, personal my Lords I prefer to trust auto traders expert analysis rather than government wish list projections. So what are the government? So what are the government projections by 2030? The UK government believes we could have been approximately 8,000,012 million hybrid vehicles or electric cars if uptake aligns with government targets. By 2014, the number could reach 25 million, according to the Local Government Association. And by 2050, some projections aligned with the UK's net zero goals. I submit up to 37.4 million electric vehicles.
If we go flat out on net zero. So, my Lords, we have a 11 million, we might have 11 million hybrid cars if the uptake aligns with government targets. But my Lords, at the present moment, we now see that those targets are 100% out already, just as the government's heat pump projections are about 500% out. It's all wishful thinking in the nicest possible way, but it's wishful thinking. But the big danger here in my Lords is where is where my Noble Friends amendment are.
They're absolutely spot. All is a local government association projection of 25 million electric cars by 2040. Now, where on earth does the LGU get that information from? What does the LGA know about forecasting electric car uptake? And the only people who can do that are the car manufacturers, the dealers, others in the trade have got their finger on the pulse of buyer motivation. Understand battery replacement cost, Chinese cheap car penetration, trade in values, etc. If local authorities take up the projections of the local government association, if they take them seriously as they are likely to do, then we will see twice as many non electric car parking spaces ripped out and connected, and we'll have electric car places instead of them, and that projection will be wrong.
The I simply ask you cast your mind back to 2020, when everyone thought that electric vehicles were the bee's knees and would rapidly replace petrol and diesel cars. In 2019, the Department of Transport forecasts there would be 1.5 million electric cars by the end of 2020. The actual figure was that at the end of 2020, there were approximately 431,000 ultra low emission vehicles, and that includes battery electric and fully electric. That is one third of the government projections and my Lords are simply what would have happened then if local authorities actually had the money and the resources to implement those flawed projections.
Well, thank goodness they didn't have the money to do it either. Would have removed thousands of conventional car parking spaces and install three times more electric charging points than there were cars. That is why it is essential that local authorities follow the measure. And my noble friend's amendments. We must have a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charging points, which would replace general use parking, and businesses and residents must have the power to request a review where EV installations reduce conventional parking.
We have seen local authorities ride roughshod over local residents with their closing of roads, ridiculously low speed restrictions, and I have no doubt that many will ignore the needs of petrol and car drivers in the fanatical pursuit of electric cars. Now, my Lords, I also strongly support my Noble friend Lord Berwick's Amendment 55 and I congratulate him on all the work he has done with London cabs over the years, making them accessible. I, and thousands of other people in London would never be able to move anywhere around this city if it was not for the ramps, which he insisted on building into electric cars, into London cars.
And the new, longer ramps are just superb now. My lowest, most charging points I've seen seem to be about one metre above the pavement and theoretically should be accessible for disabled motorists. However, if a disabled motorist is one of those who uses a wheelchair adapted vehicle, then I've seen many charging points which are not usable and I congratulate my friend Baroness Jay Thompson for the excellent speech she has just made, setting out many of the deficiencies she has faced. Now. In 2018, it was calculated with the number of vehicles adopted or converted for wheelchair users was about 400,000, but that includes drivers and passengers, so it's a relatively small number in comparison to the 30 million other vehicles on the road.
But first Lord, if you're a wheelchair user, there needs to be a dropped kerb. So imagine you are a wheelchair user in a car, a driveway. There's only two ways to use it. You either get a ramp at the back to get out and in, or a little lift and hoist, then to go to the driver's seat. So the first decision you've got to make if you see an electric charging point is do you drive in in such a way that you're exiting onto the street and taking the risk there? Or you have to turn the vehicle round so your driver's seat is next to the car? If that's the case, Molloy's there needs to be a dropped kerb nearby so that the wheelchair user can get out of the vehicle and get onto the pavement, not suggesting that every charging point must have a dropped kerb, but one nearby.
Then the charging plug must not face the street or cars, and so a wheelchair user can't get round to that site to use it. It's not rocket science below. It's not expensive to make sure that all plug in points either face the pavement or at right angles to it, or at least don't face the street. Whilst I have no solution for the scenario where the for the plug in car is in the middle of the bonnet or the boot, and the wheelchair user can plug it in, OK, but then kind of get onto the pavement to plug it in at the other end.
The latest statistics are that plugs on cars are in the rear. This is the most frequent location where 37% of vehicles in the electric vehicles in the UK configured that way. Plug in in the rear on a yes. On the right wing, yes on the left rear. This is the second most common spot found in 31% of vehicles. And on the left front that's less common still, but 18% of vehicles. So my Lords the wheelchair user has to get either the left rear right ear of the front to plug it in, then has to get on the pavement to plug it into the socket there.
So I, I do believe that my, my, my noble friend Lord is absolutely right. And if the government does not give this simple concession, I do hope he will push his amendment to the vote. Find my Lords I flagged my concern at the mention of cross pavement charging points to say. Suffice it to say that in my short journeys here in the Lords and my trusty chariot, I battle daily with e-bikes and scooters dumped on the pavement or parked anywhere on the pavement.
Then one contends with temporary construction work, which necessitates cables and pipes crossing the pavement. Now it can be fair. In nearly every case, the construction companies cover them up with temporary cable ramps or protectors. But in about 50% of the cases, they're so high in lumpy and protruding, I can't get a wheelchair over them, and I sometimes get grounded trying to cross over them. However, my lawyers, these construction companies know they're law and they try to safeguard pedestrians. But will we see the same restraint on care when there may be millions of cables crossing the pavement, not laid and protected by construction companies, but by some of the perhaps couldn't care less drivers who parked on the pavement at the moment, or the cyclists who drive on the pavement and dump their electric bikes there below.
I will say no more on that, but I do urge the government to ensure that in future, if they've got charging points on the pavement, that they take steps to make sure that the cables crossing the pavement are not dangerous for all disabled users, whether in wheelchairs or walking or blind. So I do hope we can have assurances on that point. that point.
12:16
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
Yes, I. amendments 52 and 57. I thank the noble Baroness pigeon for tabling these important amendments. The roll out of public and domestic chargepoint infrastructure is vital to ensuring, excuse me, a smooth transition to zero emission vehicles, particularly for those without access to off street parking. Amendment 57 seeks to simplify the installation of cross pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights. The government has listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords on this matter and further supports the aim.
The noble Baroness is intending with this amendment. As such, we will launch a consultation on introducing permitted development in the coming months. It is important that a consultation is undertaken to consider the impacts of such a permitted development rights and develop appropriate mitigations, should the proposal be taken forward, subject to the outcome of the consultations. We will then make changes quickly under secondary legislation through the Town and Country Planning Act to simplify cross pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights.
The Second Amendment proposes that cross pavement charging solutions be treated as public chargepoints under clause 47, allowing installation without a section 50 Street Works licence. Section 50 licenses provide local authorities with the statutory means to supervise and regulate third party works on public highways, ensuring standards of safety, quality and responsibility are upheld. This oversight is especially important in developing areas such as cross pavement charging, to avoid some of the some of the difficulties that the noble Lord law has has just outlined.
Whilst the public chargepoint market is now relatively mature, with over 86,000 installations in the UK, the Cross Pipe pavement solution space remains nascent, with just a few hundred installations today. Given this disparity, it's appropriate section 50 licences continue to be used for cross pavement installations, as my department intends to consult on expanded permitted development rights. It would also not be appropriate to remove the need for section 50 licences at this time, as that would remove those key checks and balances for local authorities.
However, a delivery model already available for local authorities is to use their own highways teams. In doing so, they can already access street works permits to directly install cross pavement solutions and avoid the need for a section 50 licence. This approach gives local authorities power to make delivery decisions at a local level, whilst maintaining oversight and the choice of delivery model. Having listened to the noble Baronesses concerns, my department write to local authorities in England to highlight that this is an important option that should be considered as well as this, that the government is working to improve consistency and accelerate rollout through dedicated funding, clear guidance and the sharing of best practice.
This includes £25 million in grant funding for cross pavement channels in England, new and additional guidance and the aforementioned consultation on expanding permitted development rights. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to beg leaves to withdraw her amendments. I turned to the noble Lord Moylan, amendments 53 and 50, for the purpose of clause 47 of this bill is to support the roll out of essential EV charging infrastructure across England. This clause is an essential measure for simplifying the application and approval measures for public EV charging points.
In response to increasing demand for charging infrastructure. The amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, undermines this and adds additional burdens on local authorities, ultimately slowing down rollout. Only in certain cases does a local authority choose the dedicated parking bay for EV charging. In such situations, the current framework, such as the use of traffic regulation orders, already enables highways authorities to manage parking on public roads efficiency efficiently. Where an EV charging bay is needed, a traffic regulation order can be implemented to allocate the space.
The procedure for putting a traffic regulation order in place includes public consultation and the formal announcement of the authority's intentions. In cases where installation work temporarily disrupts existing parking arrangements, a temporary traffic Regulation order may be used here. Two authorities must publish their intention to suspend a parking bay in advance. My department also provides statutory guidance, the Code of Practice for the coordination Street and Roadworks. This promotes early engagement and consultation amongst all relevant parties before works. It is vital that our regulatory framework supports progress rather than creating unnecessary obstacles.
Imposing an additional requirement for impact assessments at this point would place an excessive strain on highway authorities, a challenge which will only intensify as applications for chargepoint installations continue to increase and to expect authorities to undertake detailed assessments for every permit. Application to install a public ChargePoint would not only introduce additional costs and administrative pressure, but it would also hinder their ability to meet the timings prescribed in existing statutory guidance, which sets out the parameters for response times for permit applications.
Turning to amendment 54, I also thank the noble Lord Boylan for tabling this amendment on enabling residents or businesses to request a formal review where electric vehicle installations reduce access to conventional parking. The proposed amendment would require highway authorities to conduct formal reviews of electric vehicle chargepoint installations at the request of any resident or business, regardless of the scale of concern. Within 30 days. This again would place unnecessary burdens and costs on authorities diverting resources from essential delivery work and risking delays to our drive towards net zero.
At a time when we must accelerate the electric vehicle deployment, we cannot afford an added obstacles. Furthermore, allowing retrospective reviews at the request of individuals risks reopening settled decisions. The statutory guidance for Highway Authorities operating permit schemes provides clear powers to assess the impact of street works and to impose conditions aimed at mitigating disruption, including the loss of parking. Authorities are expected to exercise these powers, ensuring that permit conditions are proportionate and aligned with broader objectives, with the broader objectives of network management.
This amendment adds complexity without delivering meaningful benefit. It risks slowing the pace of electric vehicle infrastructure deployment and undermining the confidence of delivery partners. Finally, I note the local Ben Cathro's views on the future park of electric vehicle vehicles. The noble Lord is welcome to his views, but the government doesn't agree with him. But in any event, we need to make provision for electric vehicles which are already on the road roads today and the government's bill seeks to do that. Returning to amendments 53 and 54, I would therefore ask the noble Lord Moylan to beg leave with to withdraw his amendments.
My Lords, I finally turn to the noble Lord. Amendment 55 with relation to accessible charging, I ensure that I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Grey-Thompson and your Lordships' House that this government is very mindful of the difficulties that drivers with disabilities face, and the noble Baroness has graphically described why we need to take some action, given that there will be an estimated 2.7 million disabled drivers or passengers on the roads by 2035, making public chargepoints accessible isn't just about being fair and inclusive.
It's vital. As a result, the government is supporting the adoption of accessible electric vehicles, including wheelchair accessible models and the infrastructure that supports them, by encouraging their production and uptake through regulatory and policy incentives. My department and the Motability Foundation previously co-sponsored the creation of the first global set of standards for accessible chargepoints by the British Standards Institution. The Public Accessibility Standard, pages 1899 2022, to provide a specification for designing and installing accessible public EV chargepoints.
However, we acknowledge that adoption of these standards has not met expectations to date given the importance of ensuring accessible charging network. My department and the Motability Foundation commissioned the BSI, but it stands as an institution to review the adoption of the standards and any changes needed to accelerate its uptake and improve accessibility. As the noble Lord Borwick has said, this review has involved a range of stakeholders, including disability advocacy organisations, consumer bodies, industry, devolved governments and others and has identified challenges with the current standards and will be published very shortly.
The review of this standard demonstrated a clear commitment from across the sector to ensure start charging is accessible for all drivers, and has recommended changes and revisions to address these challenges. There are, of course, in addition, certain requirements that businesses, including those providing public charging, must follow under the Equality Act. Whilst the Act sets out these general duties, specific standards like PES 1899 2022 help ensure Chargepoints are accessible in in, in, in practice. And I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness and Grey-Thompson Grey-Thompson that Newport Council has done has done well in this respect.
And of course, we want all other local authorities and private providers to do the same. So the priority at this stage must be, therefore to work with stakeholders across the sector to address the findings of the recent review. We believe there is clear support for this plan from interested parties and the groups that contributed. Following this, we will monitor the adoption by industry and the impact on accessibility carefully to evaluate whether even further measures may be needed and the government's view.
It would therefore be premature to seek legislative legislative measures to mandate the requirements at this stage. I recognise that these provisions are fundamentally enabling powers, and I am grateful to have been able to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, yesterday afternoon since he tabled his amendment. Whilst I cannot currently accept his amendment and therefore beg leave for him to withdraw it, the government will continue to consider this issue. I can assure him that all the groups I have mentioned will continue to play a vital role in accessibility and taking forward the findings of the review, and I will continue to work with him and the noble Baroness on this matter to see what we can do to speed up the process.
I think to move. move.
The noble Baroness is intending with this amendment. As such, we will launch a consultation on introducing permitted development in the coming months. It is important that a consultation is undertaken to consider the impacts of such a permitted development rights and develop appropriate mitigations, should the proposal be taken forward, subject to the outcome of the consultations. We will then make changes quickly under secondary legislation through the Town and Country Planning Act to simplify cross pavement charging solutions by granting permitted development rights.
The Second Amendment proposes that cross pavement charging solutions be treated as public chargepoints under clause 47, allowing installation without a section 50 Street Works licence. Section 50 licenses provide local authorities with the statutory means to supervise and regulate third party works on public highways, ensuring standards of safety, quality and responsibility are upheld. This oversight is especially important in developing areas such as cross pavement charging, to avoid some of the some of the difficulties that the noble Lord law has has just outlined.
Whilst the public chargepoint market is now relatively mature, with over 86,000 installations in the UK, the Cross Pipe pavement solution space remains nascent, with just a few hundred installations today. Given this disparity, it's appropriate section 50 licences continue to be used for cross pavement installations, as my department intends to consult on expanded permitted development rights. It would also not be appropriate to remove the need for section 50 licences at this time, as that would remove those key checks and balances for local authorities.
However, a delivery model already available for local authorities is to use their own highways teams. In doing so, they can already access street works permits to directly install cross pavement solutions and avoid the need for a section 50 licence. This approach gives local authorities power to make delivery decisions at a local level, whilst maintaining oversight and the choice of delivery model. Having listened to the noble Baronesses concerns, my department write to local authorities in England to highlight that this is an important option that should be considered as well as this, that the government is working to improve consistency and accelerate rollout through dedicated funding, clear guidance and the sharing of best practice.
This includes £25 million in grant funding for cross pavement channels in England, new and additional guidance and the aforementioned consultation on expanding permitted development rights. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to beg leaves to withdraw her amendments. I turned to the noble Lord Moylan, amendments 53 and 50, for the purpose of clause 47 of this bill is to support the roll out of essential EV charging infrastructure across England. This clause is an essential measure for simplifying the application and approval measures for public EV charging points.
In response to increasing demand for charging infrastructure. The amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, undermines this and adds additional burdens on local authorities, ultimately slowing down rollout. Only in certain cases does a local authority choose the dedicated parking bay for EV charging. In such situations, the current framework, such as the use of traffic regulation orders, already enables highways authorities to manage parking on public roads efficiency efficiently. Where an EV charging bay is needed, a traffic regulation order can be implemented to allocate the space.
The procedure for putting a traffic regulation order in place includes public consultation and the formal announcement of the authority's intentions. In cases where installation work temporarily disrupts existing parking arrangements, a temporary traffic Regulation order may be used here. Two authorities must publish their intention to suspend a parking bay in advance. My department also provides statutory guidance, the Code of Practice for the coordination Street and Roadworks. This promotes early engagement and consultation amongst all relevant parties before works. It is vital that our regulatory framework supports progress rather than creating unnecessary obstacles.
Imposing an additional requirement for impact assessments at this point would place an excessive strain on highway authorities, a challenge which will only intensify as applications for chargepoint installations continue to increase and to expect authorities to undertake detailed assessments for every permit. Application to install a public ChargePoint would not only introduce additional costs and administrative pressure, but it would also hinder their ability to meet the timings prescribed in existing statutory guidance, which sets out the parameters for response times for permit applications.
Turning to amendment 54, I also thank the noble Lord Boylan for tabling this amendment on enabling residents or businesses to request a formal review where electric vehicle installations reduce access to conventional parking. The proposed amendment would require highway authorities to conduct formal reviews of electric vehicle chargepoint installations at the request of any resident or business, regardless of the scale of concern. Within 30 days. This again would place unnecessary burdens and costs on authorities diverting resources from essential delivery work and risking delays to our drive towards net zero.
At a time when we must accelerate the electric vehicle deployment, we cannot afford an added obstacles. Furthermore, allowing retrospective reviews at the request of individuals risks reopening settled decisions. The statutory guidance for Highway Authorities operating permit schemes provides clear powers to assess the impact of street works and to impose conditions aimed at mitigating disruption, including the loss of parking. Authorities are expected to exercise these powers, ensuring that permit conditions are proportionate and aligned with broader objectives, with the broader objectives of network management.
This amendment adds complexity without delivering meaningful benefit. It risks slowing the pace of electric vehicle infrastructure deployment and undermining the confidence of delivery partners. Finally, I note the local Ben Cathro's views on the future park of electric vehicle vehicles. The noble Lord is welcome to his views, but the government doesn't agree with him. But in any event, we need to make provision for electric vehicles which are already on the road roads today and the government's bill seeks to do that. Returning to amendments 53 and 54, I would therefore ask the noble Lord Moylan to beg leave with to withdraw his amendments.
My Lords, I finally turn to the noble Lord. Amendment 55 with relation to accessible charging, I ensure that I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Grey-Thompson and your Lordships' House that this government is very mindful of the difficulties that drivers with disabilities face, and the noble Baroness has graphically described why we need to take some action, given that there will be an estimated 2.7 million disabled drivers or passengers on the roads by 2035, making public chargepoints accessible isn't just about being fair and inclusive.
It's vital. As a result, the government is supporting the adoption of accessible electric vehicles, including wheelchair accessible models and the infrastructure that supports them, by encouraging their production and uptake through regulatory and policy incentives. My department and the Motability Foundation previously co-sponsored the creation of the first global set of standards for accessible chargepoints by the British Standards Institution. The Public Accessibility Standard, pages 1899 2022, to provide a specification for designing and installing accessible public EV chargepoints.
However, we acknowledge that adoption of these standards has not met expectations to date given the importance of ensuring accessible charging network. My department and the Motability Foundation commissioned the BSI, but it stands as an institution to review the adoption of the standards and any changes needed to accelerate its uptake and improve accessibility. As the noble Lord Borwick has said, this review has involved a range of stakeholders, including disability advocacy organisations, consumer bodies, industry, devolved governments and others and has identified challenges with the current standards and will be published very shortly.
The review of this standard demonstrated a clear commitment from across the sector to ensure start charging is accessible for all drivers, and has recommended changes and revisions to address these challenges. There are, of course, in addition, certain requirements that businesses, including those providing public charging, must follow under the Equality Act. Whilst the Act sets out these general duties, specific standards like PES 1899 2022 help ensure Chargepoints are accessible in in, in, in practice. And I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness and Grey-Thompson Grey-Thompson that Newport Council has done has done well in this respect.
And of course, we want all other local authorities and private providers to do the same. So the priority at this stage must be, therefore to work with stakeholders across the sector to address the findings of the recent review. We believe there is clear support for this plan from interested parties and the groups that contributed. Following this, we will monitor the adoption by industry and the impact on accessibility carefully to evaluate whether even further measures may be needed and the government's view.
It would therefore be premature to seek legislative legislative measures to mandate the requirements at this stage. I recognise that these provisions are fundamentally enabling powers, and I am grateful to have been able to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, yesterday afternoon since he tabled his amendment. Whilst I cannot currently accept his amendment and therefore beg leave for him to withdraw it, the government will continue to consider this issue. I can assure him that all the groups I have mentioned will continue to play a vital role in accessibility and taking forward the findings of the review, and I will continue to work with him and the noble Baroness on this matter to see what we can do to speed up the process.
I think to move. move.
12:28
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
I would like to thank the noble Lord, the Minister and his team for meeting me a number of times, including in recess, to discuss the amendments I tabled today. I think finding ways to make it easier for people who do not have. Driveways to move to electric vehicles is so important for our green transition. I welcome the Minister's commitment to a consultation on permitted developments, followed by secondary legislation as soon as possible, and also writing to all local authorities to effectively help speed up works to help those seeking cross pavement solutions.
So on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Jo Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is by leave withdrawn. We come to amendment 53, Lord Moylan.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to amendment 53, Lord Moylan. So I beg to withdraw amendment 53
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I beg to withdraw amendment 53 and amendment 54. As it has not been moved, it cannot be withdrawn. I think the noble Lord wants to say think the noble Lord wants to say not moved. And 54 similarly not not moved. And 54 similarly not moved. Then we turn to amendment 55, Lord Borwick.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Borwick. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of the House. It should be moved, yes, but in the wrong place, my Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the wrong place, my Lord. Thank you. Leave to move, I beg leave to move the amendment and assess the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
assess the opinion of the House. Amendment clause 47, page 60, line 20. At the end, insert the line 20. At the end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary. Not content. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not content. In that case, a division is called for. I will inform the House called for. I will inform the House when the voting is open. when the voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the bar
So on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Jo Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is by leave withdrawn. We come to amendment 53, Lord Moylan.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to amendment 53, Lord Moylan. So I beg to withdraw amendment 53
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I beg to withdraw amendment 53 and amendment 54. As it has not been moved, it cannot be withdrawn. I think the noble Lord wants to say think the noble Lord wants to say not moved. And 54 similarly not not moved. And 54 similarly not moved. Then we turn to amendment 55, Lord Borwick.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Borwick. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of the House. It should be moved, yes, but in the wrong place, my Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the wrong place, my Lord. Thank you. Leave to move, I beg leave to move the amendment and assess the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
assess the opinion of the House. Amendment clause 47, page 60, line 20. At the end, insert the line 20. At the end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary. Not content. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not content. In that case, a division is called for. I will inform the House called for. I will inform the House when the voting is open. when the voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the bar
12:30
Division: Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Amdt: 55
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. Want I. Want to. Thank. Thank. You. Thank. You. Thank. You. For. Time. Time. This.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. my Lords. The my Lords. The question my Lords. The question is my Lords. The question is that the amendment be agreed. Many of that opinion will say content contrary, contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the contents will go to the right by the thrown, the not contents to the left
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank Thank you. I I think. That's That's all. Thank Thank you. Yes, Yes, I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I'm I'm going. Thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My notes there have voted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My notes there have voted contents 228 not contents 113. So
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Something Something like Something like 300. Something like 300. And.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Something like 300. And. Something like 300. And. One Something like 300. And. One to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Something like 300. And. One to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. After my Lords. After clause my Lords. After clause 47,
Division: Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Amdt: 55
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. Want I. Want to. Thank. Thank. You. Thank. You. Thank. You. For. Time. Time. This.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. my Lords. The my Lords. The question my Lords. The question is my Lords. The question is that the amendment be agreed. Many of that opinion will say content contrary, contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the contents will go to the right by the thrown, the not contents to the left
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank Thank you. I I think. That's That's all. Thank Thank you. Yes, Yes, I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I'm I'm going. Thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My notes there have voted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My notes there have voted contents 228 not contents 113. So
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Something Something like Something like 300. Something like 300. And.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Something like 300. And. Something like 300. And. One Something like 300. And. One to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Something like 300. And. One to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. After my Lords. After clause my Lords. After clause 47,
12:41
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 56 Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. Given the fact that debate was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given the fact that debate was. Two days ago, I would just like to briefly remind. The House why.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Pressing this to a vote, the noble Lady. The Minister. Explained very clearly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That there is a review of the Reservoir Act 1975, which currently prohibits. And sets.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very strict. Criteria on the construction of small reservoirs. I believe now, given. The summer that we've had over.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that we've had over. The last two summers. And the difficulty for. Farmers to have access to water at short notice
**** Possible New Speaker ****
during the. Summer months. That is. Extremely important. This review is brought forward at the earliest
**** Possible New Speaker ****
possible. Possibility, to make. Sure that farmers. to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ensure that their stock, their fed and their crops are watered. On that basis, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that basis, I beg to move. After clause 47, insert the following new clause in the words as following new clause in the words as printed on the marshals list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. Contains contrary, not content. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Think the not contents have it. Content, but. The matter will be decided by a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The matter will be decided by a division. I will call when the Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now open. Voting is now open. Clear Voting is now open. Clear the.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 56 Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. Given the fact that debate was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given the fact that debate was. Two days ago, I would just like to briefly remind. The House why.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Pressing this to a vote, the noble Lady. The Minister. Explained very clearly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That there is a review of the Reservoir Act 1975, which currently prohibits. And sets.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very strict. Criteria on the construction of small reservoirs. I believe now, given. The summer that we've had over.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that we've had over. The last two summers. And the difficulty for. Farmers to have access to water at short notice
**** Possible New Speaker ****
during the. Summer months. That is. Extremely important. This review is brought forward at the earliest
**** Possible New Speaker ****
possible. Possibility, to make. Sure that farmers. to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ensure that their stock, their fed and their crops are watered. On that basis, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that basis, I beg to move. After clause 47, insert the following new clause in the words as following new clause in the words as printed on the marshals list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. Contains contrary, not content. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Think the not contents have it. Content, but. The matter will be decided by a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The matter will be decided by a division. I will call when the Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now open. Voting is now open. Clear Voting is now open. Clear the.
12:44
Division: Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Amdt: 56
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Stick, I just say. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary, not content. Contains the contents will go to the right by the thrown, the not contents to the left thrown, the not contents to the left by the bar. Previous. Previous. Point. If we If we decide. If we decide. Yes, If we decide. Yes, we If we decide. Yes, we should. Other.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Votes. The question is that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Relevant.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They. They. I They. I have They. I have voted They. I have voted contents They. I have voted contents 173,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They. I have voted contents 173, not contents 120. So the contents have it. have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well done. OK. Thank you very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well done. OK. Thank you very.
Division: Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Amdt: 56
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Stick, I just say. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say. Content the contrary, not content. Contains the contents will go to the right by the thrown, the not contents to the left thrown, the not contents to the left by the bar. Previous. Previous. Point. If we If we decide. If we decide. Yes, If we decide. Yes, we If we decide. Yes, we should. Other.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Votes. The question is that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Relevant.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They. They. I They. I have They. I have voted They. I have voted contents They. I have voted contents 173,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They. I have voted contents 173, not contents 120. So the contents have it. have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well done. OK. Thank you very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well done. OK. Thank you very.
12:54
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment 57 Baroness pigeon. As we move to amendment 58, Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Jamieson. my Lords, can I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord, the Minister, for his response when I raised this. At committee stage and his subsequent communication? While I subsequent communication? While I that the Minister recognises the problem that this amendment seeks to address, I'm somewhat afraid that limited tinkering does not solve the problem. We need to do something more meaningful. As I said at committee stage, we're plagued with constant disruption to our roads from roadworks, and in the majority of cases these relate to utilities works.
It is a huge frustration to all drivers, all often causing significant traffic delays, economic damage and environmental impact. It also impacts householders, pedestrians, cyclists caught up in or impacted by the noise and fumes of idling cars. Local businesses suffer as they lose business because people can no longer come to their pub or shop or whatever because of the excessive journey times, and when these delays are on major roads is often those small country roads that are impacted by excessive traffic as people seek alternative routes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The frustration. Of drivers is doubly so when we see no work being done on these roadworks. Sometimes that is for a good reason, but often it is for the good reason, but often it is for the convenience of the contractor. I gave the example last time a traffic gave the example last time a traffic light put out on a Friday for work, starting with the subsequent Monday, and then the work completing on and then the work completing on Thursday.
And yet the traffic lights are not removed until the subsequent Monday, so we can have a closed, sorry, traffic lights or a closure for ten days when there's only 3 or for ten days when there's only 3 or 4 days worth of work. There's also the example of work being done, but during the day and nothing overnight, and the opportunity to move these traffic lights to one move these traffic lights to one side, now we recognise that utility work is essential, but this really should be done in a way that should be done in a way that minimises disruption.
Kicking road closures, keeping traffic lights to closures, keeping traffic lights to the absolute minimum. Now, while councils and government have sought to address this through measures to address this through measures such as permitting regimes, and many councils do this in a proactive manner and forcing roadworks to be kept to the permitted time. But this does not stop utility companies seeking a two week gap, when they might be able to get away with a 5 or 6 day road closure. As we discussed last time, there is a lane rental scheme under the 2012 Len Lane Rental regulations and as my noble friend Lloyd Moylan can attest from his time in London, it works well for transport for London.
But this is an exception as the majority of their significant roads can be covered by the criteria of highly sensitive roads, and they have the resources to deal with the bureaucracy involved, which includes applying to the Secretary of State for statutory instrument. Outside of London, it can only include a maximum of 10 or 20% of the road network, and as such only for county councils have applied. It doesn't work in particular in rural areas. Now there is a better way.
There should be a national scheme with appropriate protections and so forth, but enabling a wider range of highways to be included that councils could simply opt into without the need for applying for a statutory instrument. This amendment not only seek to reduce the time during which our roads are held up by roadworks, it would also reduce the bureaucracy involved in getting a lane rental scheme. Can I ask the noble Lord, the minister, not to tinker with the existing scheme? But as The Chancellor has promised, sweep away unnecessary red tape to enable growth by enabling local highways authorities to keep our roads open and traffic flowing for the benefit of motorists, residents, the economy and local business.
I move my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 47. Insert the following new clause
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment 57 Baroness pigeon. As we move to amendment 58, Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Jamieson. my Lords, can I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his response
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord, the Minister, for his response when I raised this. At committee stage and his subsequent communication? While I subsequent communication? While I that the Minister recognises the problem that this amendment seeks to address, I'm somewhat afraid that limited tinkering does not solve the problem. We need to do something more meaningful. As I said at committee stage, we're plagued with constant disruption to our roads from roadworks, and in the majority of cases these relate to utilities works.
It is a huge frustration to all drivers, all often causing significant traffic delays, economic damage and environmental impact. It also impacts householders, pedestrians, cyclists caught up in or impacted by the noise and fumes of idling cars. Local businesses suffer as they lose business because people can no longer come to their pub or shop or whatever because of the excessive journey times, and when these delays are on major roads is often those small country roads that are impacted by excessive traffic as people seek alternative routes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The frustration. Of drivers is doubly so when we see no work being done on these roadworks. Sometimes that is for a good reason, but often it is for the good reason, but often it is for the convenience of the contractor. I gave the example last time a traffic gave the example last time a traffic light put out on a Friday for work, starting with the subsequent Monday, and then the work completing on and then the work completing on Thursday.
And yet the traffic lights are not removed until the subsequent Monday, so we can have a closed, sorry, traffic lights or a closure for ten days when there's only 3 or for ten days when there's only 3 or 4 days worth of work. There's also the example of work being done, but during the day and nothing overnight, and the opportunity to move these traffic lights to one move these traffic lights to one side, now we recognise that utility work is essential, but this really should be done in a way that should be done in a way that minimises disruption.
Kicking road closures, keeping traffic lights to closures, keeping traffic lights to the absolute minimum. Now, while councils and government have sought to address this through measures to address this through measures such as permitting regimes, and many councils do this in a proactive manner and forcing roadworks to be kept to the permitted time. But this does not stop utility companies seeking a two week gap, when they might be able to get away with a 5 or 6 day road closure. As we discussed last time, there is a lane rental scheme under the 2012 Len Lane Rental regulations and as my noble friend Lloyd Moylan can attest from his time in London, it works well for transport for London.
But this is an exception as the majority of their significant roads can be covered by the criteria of highly sensitive roads, and they have the resources to deal with the bureaucracy involved, which includes applying to the Secretary of State for statutory instrument. Outside of London, it can only include a maximum of 10 or 20% of the road network, and as such only for county councils have applied. It doesn't work in particular in rural areas. Now there is a better way.
There should be a national scheme with appropriate protections and so forth, but enabling a wider range of highways to be included that councils could simply opt into without the need for applying for a statutory instrument. This amendment not only seek to reduce the time during which our roads are held up by roadworks, it would also reduce the bureaucracy involved in getting a lane rental scheme. Can I ask the noble Lord, the minister, not to tinker with the existing scheme? But as The Chancellor has promised, sweep away unnecessary red tape to enable growth by enabling local highways authorities to keep our roads open and traffic flowing for the benefit of motorists, residents, the economy and local business.
I move my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 47. Insert the following new clause
12:59
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as printed on the marshalled list. This is an important issue that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is an important issue that has been raised by the noble Lord about the huge frustrations of roadworks, particularly utility works, and as already has been mentioned, lane rental schemes exist in places like London and other highway authorities are setting them up too in England for our benches. This, though, is an issue of localism and whilst government can always share best practice, we think it is for local and regional areas to develop schemes that suit their locality and their needs.
We don't see the need at this point for this amendment but await hearing. The amendment but await hearing. The Minister's response with interest.
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as printed on the marshalled list. This is an important issue that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is an important issue that has been raised by the noble Lord about the huge frustrations of roadworks, particularly utility works, and as already has been mentioned, lane rental schemes exist in places like London and other highway authorities are setting them up too in England for our benches. This, though, is an issue of localism and whilst government can always share best practice, we think it is for local and regional areas to develop schemes that suit their locality and their needs.
We don't see the need at this point for this amendment but await hearing. The amendment but await hearing. The Minister's response with interest.
12:59
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
Briefly to say, my Lords, as I said when we discussed this in committee, it seems perfectly obvious that the powers of transport for London in relation to lane rental should be available to highways authorities in the rest of the country. There is no objection to their operation in London. They work reasonably well. Nothing works perfectly, of course, and there will always be roads that are blocked. I speaking from my own experience, I think there has been continuous highways works on Knightsbridge, including the tunnel for the whole of the last 12 months, including at the moment, but nonetheless, I am sure that they would be even worse if we didn't have a lane rental scheme in London.
It should be available to the rest of the country, and I think my naval friend is speaking common sense. I hope that still will agree with him and accept the amendment. accept the amendment.
It should be available to the rest of the country, and I think my naval friend is speaking common sense. I hope that still will agree with him and accept the amendment. accept the amendment.
13:00
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
my Lords, I thank the noble Lord Jameson. Excuse me for tabling this amendment on a new national lane rental scheme. And as the noble Lord says, he and I have exchanged correspondence in this issue for which I thank him. This government is committed to reduce disruption from street works and improve the efficiency of our road networks. Lane rental is a valuable tool that enables highway authorities to charge utilities up to £25,000 a day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times.
These charges incentivise quicker, quicker completion, off peak scheduling and alternative locations to minimise disruption. Existing schemes not only that in London, with transport for London a scheme I happen to have the privilege of introducing in my time as the Commissioner at Transport for London, but also in Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex and with more applications in train have shown, showed that line rental encourages more thoughtful planning and has proven effective in reducing disruption where congestion is most acute.
However, lane rental is not suitable for every area or every road. Many local authorities don't experience the level of congestion needed to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. Whilst we remain committed to empowering local local authorities, we must be mindful that there is a risk that extending lane rental powers universally could lead to an inconsistent and fragmented approach across the country. The government the government recognises the value of local leadership. That is why, in our devolution White Paper, we committed, subject to consultation, to devolving approval of local lane rental schemes to mayoral strategic authorities.
We've consulted on this proposal and we will publish the results on next steps as soon as we can. In relation to proposed revenue ring fencing from January 2026, highway authorities operating lane rental schemes will be required to spend 50% of surplus line rental charges on highway maintenance, including the remediation of potholes and the remaining 50% on measures intended to reduce the disruption or other adverse effects arising because of street works. These requirements will be set out in legislation and updated guidance, ensuring a balanced and targeted use of funds for the reason outlined.
I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraw, beg, leave to withdraw this amendment. disappointed. disappointed.
These charges incentivise quicker, quicker completion, off peak scheduling and alternative locations to minimise disruption. Existing schemes not only that in London, with transport for London a scheme I happen to have the privilege of introducing in my time as the Commissioner at Transport for London, but also in Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex and with more applications in train have shown, showed that line rental encourages more thoughtful planning and has proven effective in reducing disruption where congestion is most acute.
However, lane rental is not suitable for every area or every road. Many local authorities don't experience the level of congestion needed to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. Whilst we remain committed to empowering local local authorities, we must be mindful that there is a risk that extending lane rental powers universally could lead to an inconsistent and fragmented approach across the country. The government the government recognises the value of local leadership. That is why, in our devolution White Paper, we committed, subject to consultation, to devolving approval of local lane rental schemes to mayoral strategic authorities.
We've consulted on this proposal and we will publish the results on next steps as soon as we can. In relation to proposed revenue ring fencing from January 2026, highway authorities operating lane rental schemes will be required to spend 50% of surplus line rental charges on highway maintenance, including the remediation of potholes and the remaining 50% on measures intended to reduce the disruption or other adverse effects arising because of street works. These requirements will be set out in legislation and updated guidance, ensuring a balanced and targeted use of funds for the reason outlined.
I therefore ask that the noble Lord withdraw, beg, leave to withdraw this amendment. disappointed. disappointed.
13:03
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
With the Noble Minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
can be opted. Into, so it would. Still be very much a local
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Still be very much a local scheme. I do beg leave to withdraw. My motion. Is it your Lordship's pleasure,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordship's pleasure, the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
can be opted. Into, so it would. Still be very much a local
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Still be very much a local scheme. I do beg leave to withdraw. My motion. Is it your Lordship's pleasure,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordship's pleasure, the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn.
13:03
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 58, a fairness copy. Alongside. We tabled this amendment. stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stage. By my Noble friend, Lord Gascoigne, who did a marvellous job
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on it, because I was away However. I have. Decided to re table it at.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This. Point, conscious of what the. time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is. That it had only been a couple of days beforehand that the government, days beforehand that the government, or rather Sir John Cunliffe, had published the review. And indeed in the response the Minister referred. To the March 2025 report by the. Government regarding regulators and felt that this was too soon to be considering this issue. I'm also conscious, of course, that if I was actually going to move this amendment, I would have gone further and amended the 1991 Water Industry
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Act, which was the parent act to these regulations. So once this matter. We've already just seen the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We've already just seen the division on smaller reservoirs. But I'm conscious that particularly with the financial environment at the moment regarding water industry, who, by the way, will be putting a who, by the way, will be putting a record amount of capital into fixing things like sewers over the next 5 things like sewers over the next 5 to 10 years, as well as the other work being done. There are still work being done. There are still significant needs for reservoirs, recognising, as will be said, that in the last 30 years one hasn't been in the last 30 years one hasn't been built.
Well. I will remind your Lordships that in 2015 it was Lordships that in 2015 it was completed the expansion of the Abington Reservoir in Essex, which expanded by about 58% in its capacity. And actually the water industry has got far more efficient at its use of water. And while there at its use of water. And while there are still leaks, that is also significantly reduced. But nevertheless, the pressure on water
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nevertheless, the pressure on water resources in this country is astute. But the reason. For seeking to encourage the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For seeking to encourage the government to look at this is in order to, frankly, recognising how successful the Thames Tideway Tunnel was is, but also as a project and given, bearing in mind the amendment passed by the government just on Monday, it. I think this would open up opportunities to reduce the cost of bills for consumers on these significant reservoir projects and indeed other projects. That's why I would continue to encourage the government to look back at the 1991 act and these regulations, and recognising a lot of what is happening in this bill is reportedly being done to try and say to the OBR, this is a way of increasing investment.
Meanwhile, part three is being used as a sledgehammer, a sledgehammer to crack the nut. That's why looking at some more straightforward aspects of deregulation could actually go a long way to resolve some of the infrastructure issues this country's face. So I would be interested to hear from the minister where the government thinking has moved on this, if at all. But it is not my intention to test the opinion of the House. I'd better move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The member proposed after clause 30 to 47, insert the new clause as
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 58, a fairness copy. Alongside. We tabled this amendment. stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stage. By my Noble friend, Lord Gascoigne, who did a marvellous job
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on it, because I was away However. I have. Decided to re table it at.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This. Point, conscious of what the. time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is. That it had only been a couple of days beforehand that the government, days beforehand that the government, or rather Sir John Cunliffe, had published the review. And indeed in the response the Minister referred. To the March 2025 report by the. Government regarding regulators and felt that this was too soon to be considering this issue. I'm also conscious, of course, that if I was actually going to move this amendment, I would have gone further and amended the 1991 Water Industry
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Act, which was the parent act to these regulations. So once this matter. We've already just seen the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We've already just seen the division on smaller reservoirs. But I'm conscious that particularly with the financial environment at the moment regarding water industry, who, by the way, will be putting a who, by the way, will be putting a record amount of capital into fixing things like sewers over the next 5 things like sewers over the next 5 to 10 years, as well as the other work being done. There are still work being done. There are still significant needs for reservoirs, recognising, as will be said, that in the last 30 years one hasn't been in the last 30 years one hasn't been built.
Well. I will remind your Lordships that in 2015 it was Lordships that in 2015 it was completed the expansion of the Abington Reservoir in Essex, which expanded by about 58% in its capacity. And actually the water industry has got far more efficient at its use of water. And while there at its use of water. And while there are still leaks, that is also significantly reduced. But nevertheless, the pressure on water
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nevertheless, the pressure on water resources in this country is astute. But the reason. For seeking to encourage the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For seeking to encourage the government to look at this is in order to, frankly, recognising how successful the Thames Tideway Tunnel was is, but also as a project and given, bearing in mind the amendment passed by the government just on Monday, it. I think this would open up opportunities to reduce the cost of bills for consumers on these significant reservoir projects and indeed other projects. That's why I would continue to encourage the government to look back at the 1991 act and these regulations, and recognising a lot of what is happening in this bill is reportedly being done to try and say to the OBR, this is a way of increasing investment.
Meanwhile, part three is being used as a sledgehammer, a sledgehammer to crack the nut. That's why looking at some more straightforward aspects of deregulation could actually go a long way to resolve some of the infrastructure issues this country's face. So I would be interested to hear from the minister where the government thinking has moved on this, if at all. But it is not my intention to test the opinion of the House. I'd better move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The member proposed after clause 30 to 47, insert the new clause as
13:06
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
printed on the marshalled list. Briefly to respond to amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly to respond to amendment 50 eight. A the name of noble Baroness Coffey that was moved in Baroness Coffey that was moved in committee by the Lord Gascoyne. My Lord. This amendment aims to remove the size and complexity tests currently required for awarding a water infrastructure project licence. While this is a technical amendment, it would have significant implications under the existing regulations, water Infrastructure Project licence is only awarded if the project is considered large or complex enough to potentially threaten the incumbent water undertakers ability to deliver services.
The test involves assessing factors like projected costs, risk profile, delivery complexity and the water companies competencies, among others, to determine whether specific specifying the project to an extended provider would result in better value for money and service stability. The goal. The goal is clear. It's to remove this this test, it's argued, and I've listened to what the noble Baroness has said, that this would allow smaller or less complex projects to potentially be outsourced or treated as specified specified infrastructure projects.
CIPs and offer better economic efficiency. This while we while we recognise this need could this could lead to broader applications of the project licences and potentially facilitate more third party infrastructure projects in the water sector. And we share this ambition to accelerate infrastructure delivery. We are cautious on this amendment and I follow the line that we took in committee the current regulatory framework, which includes the size and complexity threshold, exists as a crucial safeguard of what regulations are intended, and the test ensures ambitious projects, if managed by incumbent incumbent company, do not threaten that the water company's fundamental services obligations to its customers.
Given the widely acknowledged fragility of the water sector more generally and the broken infrastructure that has led to substantial water wastage, we must think carefully before rushing to add this. Instead of risking unintended consequences through a quick legislative fix, we prefer a more robust path that could be considered by the government co-funding models, for example, similar to those used in the nuclear sector. If crucial projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver my Lords, it is also essential to take note of the government's concerns raised in committee regarding this amendment.
The government confirmed that it's actively resisting this amendment. Certainly at committee stage, the government has already made a commitment to review the specified infrastructure projects, CIP or framework. Our understanding is that if we intend to amend this, this framework to help major water companies proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. The government stated its concerns is that removing the size complexity threshold now would pre-empt that planned review process. This emphasises the importance of ensuring that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry, to create a regime that remains targeted and proportionate to the sector's diversity needs.
The Minister assured committee that this essential review, which follows the publication of the Cunliffe Review on the water industry modernisation, will be, I understand, completed in this calendar year. So, my Lords, for those reasons, while we welcome the spirit of amendment 58 a, we really we believe that this the responsible course of action is to allow the government to complete their committed plan of regulatory review. And for that reason, we are unable to support this amendment.
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
printed on the marshalled list. Briefly to respond to amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly to respond to amendment 50 eight. A the name of noble Baroness Coffey that was moved in Baroness Coffey that was moved in committee by the Lord Gascoyne. My Lord. This amendment aims to remove the size and complexity tests currently required for awarding a water infrastructure project licence. While this is a technical amendment, it would have significant implications under the existing regulations, water Infrastructure Project licence is only awarded if the project is considered large or complex enough to potentially threaten the incumbent water undertakers ability to deliver services.
The test involves assessing factors like projected costs, risk profile, delivery complexity and the water companies competencies, among others, to determine whether specific specifying the project to an extended provider would result in better value for money and service stability. The goal. The goal is clear. It's to remove this this test, it's argued, and I've listened to what the noble Baroness has said, that this would allow smaller or less complex projects to potentially be outsourced or treated as specified specified infrastructure projects.
CIPs and offer better economic efficiency. This while we while we recognise this need could this could lead to broader applications of the project licences and potentially facilitate more third party infrastructure projects in the water sector. And we share this ambition to accelerate infrastructure delivery. We are cautious on this amendment and I follow the line that we took in committee the current regulatory framework, which includes the size and complexity threshold, exists as a crucial safeguard of what regulations are intended, and the test ensures ambitious projects, if managed by incumbent incumbent company, do not threaten that the water company's fundamental services obligations to its customers.
Given the widely acknowledged fragility of the water sector more generally and the broken infrastructure that has led to substantial water wastage, we must think carefully before rushing to add this. Instead of risking unintended consequences through a quick legislative fix, we prefer a more robust path that could be considered by the government co-funding models, for example, similar to those used in the nuclear sector. If crucial projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver my Lords, it is also essential to take note of the government's concerns raised in committee regarding this amendment.
The government confirmed that it's actively resisting this amendment. Certainly at committee stage, the government has already made a commitment to review the specified infrastructure projects, CIP or framework. Our understanding is that if we intend to amend this, this framework to help major water companies proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. The government stated its concerns is that removing the size complexity threshold now would pre-empt that planned review process. This emphasises the importance of ensuring that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry, to create a regime that remains targeted and proportionate to the sector's diversity needs.
The Minister assured committee that this essential review, which follows the publication of the Cunliffe Review on the water industry modernisation, will be, I understand, completed in this calendar year. So, my Lords, for those reasons, while we welcome the spirit of amendment 58 a, we really we believe that this the responsible course of action is to allow the government to complete their committed plan of regulatory review. And for that reason, we are unable to support this amendment.
13:11
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
my Lords, I, I rise.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. Support amendment. 58 eight tabled. In the name of my Noble friend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the name of my Noble friend Baroness Coffey. Under the current framework of we have heard. sufficiently.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sufficiently. considered. For separate infrastructure licence. This threshold.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
licence. This threshold. May have made sense that at times that the regulator at the time that regulations were introduced, but it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
regulations were introduced, but it now risks being a barrier to innovation, investment and investment in the. Sector.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which is already under. Increased strain. By removing this test, the amendment would. Allow projects to amendment would. Allow projects to be assessed on their value for money alone. A clearer, more practical standard. It would not lower the bar for scrutiny, but rather broaden the scope for alternative delivery models where they can be demonstrated to give clear public demonstrated to give clear public benefit. My Lords. Given the ongoing challenges around water security, pollution and climate resilience, we should be enabling a wider range of solutions, not limiting, limiting, solutions, not limiting, limiting, limiting them to outdated regulatory constraints.
My Lords, this is a constraints. My Lords, this is a modest and targeted amendment that would give off Watt and the relevant authorities greater flexibility to support efficient investment in our water infrastructure. We agree with its intent, and we would support it and hope that the government will and hope that the government will think again. My Lords, I welcome this amendment from Baroness Coffey this amendment from Baroness Coffey which seeks to ensure the specified Infrastructure infrastructure project regulations are amended to project regulations are amended to enable a broader use and to ensure that we get value for money for customers.
They exist at the moment customers. They exist at the moment and to procurement models for delivering infrastructure. The CIP, CPR and the direct procurement for customers, the DPC. I acknowledge that we have got to do all we can to that we have got to do all we can to make sure that customers get that good value for money that we're all seeking. That's why the government response to the independent water review undertaken by Sir John Cunliffe. We will address our proposals for changes across both those procurement models in the white Paper, which will be published white Paper, which will be published shortly.
For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. My Lord, sir, I'm. amendment. My Lord, sir, I'm.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. Support amendment. 58 eight tabled. In the name of my Noble friend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the name of my Noble friend Baroness Coffey. Under the current framework of we have heard. sufficiently.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sufficiently. considered. For separate infrastructure licence. This threshold.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
licence. This threshold. May have made sense that at times that the regulator at the time that regulations were introduced, but it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
regulations were introduced, but it now risks being a barrier to innovation, investment and investment in the. Sector.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which is already under. Increased strain. By removing this test, the amendment would. Allow projects to amendment would. Allow projects to be assessed on their value for money alone. A clearer, more practical standard. It would not lower the bar for scrutiny, but rather broaden the scope for alternative delivery models where they can be demonstrated to give clear public demonstrated to give clear public benefit. My Lords. Given the ongoing challenges around water security, pollution and climate resilience, we should be enabling a wider range of solutions, not limiting, limiting, solutions, not limiting, limiting, limiting them to outdated regulatory constraints.
My Lords, this is a constraints. My Lords, this is a modest and targeted amendment that would give off Watt and the relevant authorities greater flexibility to support efficient investment in our water infrastructure. We agree with its intent, and we would support it and hope that the government will and hope that the government will think again. My Lords, I welcome this amendment from Baroness Coffey this amendment from Baroness Coffey which seeks to ensure the specified Infrastructure infrastructure project regulations are amended to project regulations are amended to enable a broader use and to ensure that we get value for money for customers.
They exist at the moment customers. They exist at the moment and to procurement models for delivering infrastructure. The CIP, CPR and the direct procurement for customers, the DPC. I acknowledge that we have got to do all we can to that we have got to do all we can to make sure that customers get that good value for money that we're all seeking. That's why the government response to the independent water review undertaken by Sir John Cunliffe. We will address our proposals for changes across both those procurement models in the white Paper, which will be published white Paper, which will be published shortly.
For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. My Lord, sir, I'm. amendment. My Lord, sir, I'm.
13:13
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
Looking forward to the White paper and I hope, even if it doesn't come up in the white.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper, that there will be a water bill coming at some point in the next year or so. So I if I haven't next year or so. So I if I haven't yet persuaded the government today, but we'll return to it in due
**** Possible New Speaker ****
but we'll return to it in due course. But with that I beg leave to. Your lordship, dispose of the amendment. Be withdrawn. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper, that there will be a water bill coming at some point in the next year or so. So I if I haven't next year or so. So I if I haven't yet persuaded the government today, but we'll return to it in due
**** Possible New Speaker ****
but we'll return to it in due course. But with that I beg leave to. Your lordship, dispose of the amendment. Be withdrawn. The
13:13
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
amendment. Be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 59. The Baroness Thornhill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And are asked to move. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
59. And I was very pleased when it was debated at committee. Stage. That there was a very small but warm consensus that this seemed a fair and reasonable amendment. Now we are well aware that SMEs face many challenges, but we believe that this is a small but significant this is a small but significant signal to them that we understand their concerns, because my Lords the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their concerns, because my Lords the problem could not be clearer. The planning system is, by its very nature, stacked against. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Little players, those small and medium sized House builders, those medium sized House builders, those local and skilled firms who know their communities best. They're operating in a system designed for operating in a system designed for the big players. They already face headwinds from finance, land supply
**** Possible New Speaker ****
headwinds from finance, land supply and market exposure. Yet our. Own planning. System makes. These headwinds stronger.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
These headwinds stronger. Planning fees are one of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning fees are one of the clearest examples of how policy unintentionally financially disadvantages smaller builders who disadvantages smaller builders who are already struggling to survive. Small builders now only deliver 10% of new homes in the UK, and that's down from almost half in the 60s and 70s heyday. And the number of SME House builders has fallen from more than 12,000 in the 80s to around 2500 today. Now, when we debated this in committee, the minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Said that the bill already provides authorities. Will have the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will have the. Flexibility to vary fees through consultation and benchmarking. My
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. This is precisely the. Framework that has created.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Framework that has created. The Problem Benchmarking Council and consultation and cost recovery sound absolutely reasonable in sound absolutely reasonable in theory, but in practice they are the very mechanisms that have produced.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
very mechanisms that have produced. The current imbalance. SMEs already operate. Under a national system.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Under a national system. Built on these principles, and it is led directly to them paying far is led directly to them paying far more per home than large developers. And this is an evidenced fact. And this is an evidenced fact. Simply devolving this flawed model to local authorities will not suddenly make it fair.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The minister. Also said that fees will. Be linked to the cost of delivering the service.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
delivering the service. Preventing unfairness the cost
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recovery principle may stop profiteering, but it does not guarantee fairness. The process. For the 20.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For the 20. Homes scheme and a 200 home scheme is broadly the same. Both require validation.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Consultation, specialist reports. Committee consideration.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Conditions. Section 106 agreements and legal sign off. Are we surprised the numbers are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Dwindling. Yet? The smaller. Developer pays several times more per home.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
per home. For the same service in London, unless an. SME.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House builder. Pays around £60,000 more for a one bed first time, buy. A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A. Flat than a large PLC developers and a. Fifth on average.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fifth on average. A 50 homes. Scheme costs three. Times more than a. Thousand.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thousand. Homes scheme. The minister also said.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That the bill already ensures across. The system.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The system. With respect it does not, and the sector. Tell us this. There is no.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is no. Mention of proportionality anywhere in the section on planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anywhere in the section on planning fees. Without explicit wording. It remains a policy intention rather than a legal obligation. And if.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And if. Ministers truly believe that fairness and proportionality are embedded in the system and in the bill, they should have no difficulty enshrining them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In statute. Unfortunately. This absence of a clear legal. Safeguard has wider consequences,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Safeguard has wider consequences, and I refer to planning. Performance agreements. Now these have become.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Now these have become. A growing and yet another unregulated financial burden on small builders.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
small builders. PPAs were designed for large, complex projects.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But are now routinely. Applied to. Small developments. In one case, the developer of fewer than 100
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the developer of fewer than 100 homes in London. Was charged 150,000 for a PPA.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Was charged 150,000 for a PPA. These are. Big sums. For small. Builders without proportionality. Established in law. proportionality. Established in law. There is no check on such. Arbitrary and inconsistent.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Charges. This my Lords is why the SME
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This my Lords is why the SME sector believe that the current system is. Far from fair. I urge the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I urge the. Minister to think again and I beg to move. Thank you sir. Well,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you sir. Well, Woods 48, page 61, line six. At the end, insert the words as printed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on the marshalled list. What's the full of the noble Lady? And I find that there is much
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And are asked to move. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
59. And I was very pleased when it was debated at committee. Stage. That there was a very small but warm consensus that this seemed a fair and reasonable amendment. Now we are well aware that SMEs face many challenges, but we believe that this is a small but significant this is a small but significant signal to them that we understand their concerns, because my Lords the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their concerns, because my Lords the problem could not be clearer. The planning system is, by its very nature, stacked against. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Little players, those small and medium sized House builders, those medium sized House builders, those local and skilled firms who know their communities best. They're operating in a system designed for operating in a system designed for the big players. They already face headwinds from finance, land supply
**** Possible New Speaker ****
headwinds from finance, land supply and market exposure. Yet our. Own planning. System makes. These headwinds stronger.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
These headwinds stronger. Planning fees are one of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning fees are one of the clearest examples of how policy unintentionally financially disadvantages smaller builders who disadvantages smaller builders who are already struggling to survive. Small builders now only deliver 10% of new homes in the UK, and that's down from almost half in the 60s and 70s heyday. And the number of SME House builders has fallen from more than 12,000 in the 80s to around 2500 today. Now, when we debated this in committee, the minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Said that the bill already provides authorities. Will have the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will have the. Flexibility to vary fees through consultation and benchmarking. My
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords. This is precisely the. Framework that has created.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Framework that has created. The Problem Benchmarking Council and consultation and cost recovery sound absolutely reasonable in sound absolutely reasonable in theory, but in practice they are the very mechanisms that have produced.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
very mechanisms that have produced. The current imbalance. SMEs already operate. Under a national system.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Under a national system. Built on these principles, and it is led directly to them paying far is led directly to them paying far more per home than large developers. And this is an evidenced fact. And this is an evidenced fact. Simply devolving this flawed model to local authorities will not suddenly make it fair.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The minister. Also said that fees will. Be linked to the cost of delivering the service.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
delivering the service. Preventing unfairness the cost
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recovery principle may stop profiteering, but it does not guarantee fairness. The process. For the 20.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For the 20. Homes scheme and a 200 home scheme is broadly the same. Both require validation.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Consultation, specialist reports. Committee consideration.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Conditions. Section 106 agreements and legal sign off. Are we surprised the numbers are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Dwindling. Yet? The smaller. Developer pays several times more per home.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
per home. For the same service in London, unless an. SME.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House builder. Pays around £60,000 more for a one bed first time, buy. A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A. Flat than a large PLC developers and a. Fifth on average.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fifth on average. A 50 homes. Scheme costs three. Times more than a. Thousand.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thousand. Homes scheme. The minister also said.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That the bill already ensures across. The system.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The system. With respect it does not, and the sector. Tell us this. There is no.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is no. Mention of proportionality anywhere in the section on planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anywhere in the section on planning fees. Without explicit wording. It remains a policy intention rather than a legal obligation. And if.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And if. Ministers truly believe that fairness and proportionality are embedded in the system and in the bill, they should have no difficulty enshrining them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In statute. Unfortunately. This absence of a clear legal. Safeguard has wider consequences,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Safeguard has wider consequences, and I refer to planning. Performance agreements. Now these have become.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Now these have become. A growing and yet another unregulated financial burden on small builders.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
small builders. PPAs were designed for large, complex projects.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But are now routinely. Applied to. Small developments. In one case, the developer of fewer than 100
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the developer of fewer than 100 homes in London. Was charged 150,000 for a PPA.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Was charged 150,000 for a PPA. These are. Big sums. For small. Builders without proportionality. Established in law. proportionality. Established in law. There is no check on such. Arbitrary and inconsistent.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Charges. This my Lords is why the SME
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This my Lords is why the SME sector believe that the current system is. Far from fair. I urge the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I urge the. Minister to think again and I beg to move. Thank you sir. Well,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you sir. Well, Woods 48, page 61, line six. At the end, insert the words as printed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on the marshalled list. What's the full of the noble Lady? And I find that there is much
13:20
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
to commend in her amendment, which I hope gains the favour of the House, hope gains the favour of the House, and indeed the government also very taken by the amendment in the name of my friend Lord Lindsay, who will of my friend Lord Lindsay, who will go on to explain that momentarily. The reason why I have chosen to The reason why I have chosen to table this amendment 60 at report table this amendment 60 at report stage is to extract really a commitment from the Minister and commitment from the Minister and from the government to the question of fees, recognising fees will include the cost of enforcement include the cost of enforcement measures.
Now, in clause 48, the measures. Now, in clause 48, the government does recognise that the local authority, local planning authority in England, may set the authority in England, may set the level of a fee or a charge, and indeed, in clause 49, goes on to indeed, in clause 49, goes on to consider the raising of a surcharge on planning fees, which which I on planning fees, which which I think is going much further than my modest little amendment in amendment modest little amendment in amendment 60.
What I'm deeply concerned about. And if I could just raise the issues by insurance companies such as in this case, Aviva, is that the government seems to be in denial as to the implications for potential future floods. By this commitment to build 1.5 million homes in the course of this Parliament, and what is crucial is that if we are building and we come on to discuss greater flood resilience measures and indeed possibly not building on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the most functional floodplains, but at the. Moment. The Planning and Infrastructure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Planning and Infrastructure bill has no measures to improve the flood resilience of new homes. Now, flood resilience of new homes. Now, I think we have to accept that. I think we have to accept that. These measures are expensive. They These measures are expensive. They include such measures as increased insurance costs, measures to make insurance costs, measures to make the homes more resilient. Many of the homes more resilient. Many of them are geared to reducing the impact of climate change, and I think it's generally felt that this think it's generally felt that this would be a small price to pay if these measures were included and these measures were included and recovered in a modest increase to recovered in a modest increase to planning fees.
I don't think it would be disproportionately high, which is what the minister responded which is what the minister responded in her summing up. The amendments were moved in committee and that is why I've sought to raise it. I am sure the minister, the department and the government would like to see and the government would like to see these resilience measures included. Many of them are now hopefully becoming more affordable and has been the case in the past. But we can't. I think life is about choices.
And if you are going to build, if the government is going to build on functional floodplains, then we have to accept that those future homes have to be flood proofed and resilient. These measures cost money, and the purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the increased cost of ensure that those measures are adequately and properly installed will actually be covered in the cost of a fee. I do not believe the fee will be disproportionate, and therefore I have returned with this amendment today to make a plea to the Minister that she will say this is only a potentially modest increase, but it is something that she, her department and her government are asking householders to do and I believe it should be covered in the enforcement of the actual that the enforcement cost should be covered in the fee.
And that is the proposal I would like to put to the House and beg to move this afternoon.
Now, in clause 48, the measures. Now, in clause 48, the government does recognise that the local authority, local planning authority in England, may set the authority in England, may set the level of a fee or a charge, and indeed, in clause 49, goes on to indeed, in clause 49, goes on to consider the raising of a surcharge on planning fees, which which I on planning fees, which which I think is going much further than my modest little amendment in amendment modest little amendment in amendment 60.
What I'm deeply concerned about. And if I could just raise the issues by insurance companies such as in this case, Aviva, is that the government seems to be in denial as to the implications for potential future floods. By this commitment to build 1.5 million homes in the course of this Parliament, and what is crucial is that if we are building and we come on to discuss greater flood resilience measures and indeed possibly not building on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the most functional floodplains, but at the. Moment. The Planning and Infrastructure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Planning and Infrastructure bill has no measures to improve the flood resilience of new homes. Now, flood resilience of new homes. Now, I think we have to accept that. I think we have to accept that. These measures are expensive. They These measures are expensive. They include such measures as increased insurance costs, measures to make insurance costs, measures to make the homes more resilient. Many of the homes more resilient. Many of them are geared to reducing the impact of climate change, and I think it's generally felt that this think it's generally felt that this would be a small price to pay if these measures were included and these measures were included and recovered in a modest increase to recovered in a modest increase to planning fees.
I don't think it would be disproportionately high, which is what the minister responded which is what the minister responded in her summing up. The amendments were moved in committee and that is why I've sought to raise it. I am sure the minister, the department and the government would like to see and the government would like to see these resilience measures included. Many of them are now hopefully becoming more affordable and has been the case in the past. But we can't. I think life is about choices.
And if you are going to build, if the government is going to build on functional floodplains, then we have to accept that those future homes have to be flood proofed and resilient. These measures cost money, and the purpose of this amendment is simply to ensure that the increased cost of ensure that those measures are adequately and properly installed will actually be covered in the cost of a fee. I do not believe the fee will be disproportionate, and therefore I have returned with this amendment today to make a plea to the Minister that she will say this is only a potentially modest increase, but it is something that she, her department and her government are asking householders to do and I believe it should be covered in the enforcement of the actual that the enforcement cost should be covered in the fee.
And that is the proposal I would like to put to the House and beg to move this afternoon.
13:23
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
my Lords. Amendment 61.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
just wanted to say. Just one. The two things about.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just one. The two things about. amendment. I think it's it. Points in the right direction.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Points in the right direction. But I do. Think we need to be to understand where we end up. If we go in that direction for a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If we go in that direction for a long time, some noble Lords. Will have participated. In the debate we had towards. The latter stages of the last
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The latter stages of the last Parliament about. The new. Regulations relating. To. Planning fees. And of course, one
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning fees. And of course, one of the things that quite forcibly came through from that was that householders, for example, making householders, for example, making applications in relation to their own houses, were paying own houses, were paying significantly less than the cost of their of dealing with their application. So I completely take application. So I completely take the noble Lady Baroness thornhill's point that there is and has been subsequently in the government's changes to the planning charges. changes to the planning charges.
There has been some balancing of that and householders are paying more. But if I understand correctly, more. But if I understand correctly, it is the Baronesses intention noble Ladies intention that that the fees Ladies intention that that the fees that are charged should be proportionate to the number of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
households or the scale of. Development, although that isn't actually what her amendment says. It actually what her amendment says. It simply says that it should be proportionate. It doesn't say proportionate. It doesn't say proportionate to what, and basing it on the size and development could be basing it positively in a positive basing it positively in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. It doesn't. And I'm afraid when you write legislation,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise the noble Lord, Lord banner. And his colleagues.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And his colleagues. Will take it apart. And we don't want that. We want to be very clear want that. We want to be very clear about what we're setting out to achieve. So I do think I'm sure it's not her intention to press the amendment, but I do think it does amendment, but I do think it does raise an important issue. And when ministers are bringing forward the regulations to set out how the regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, that is precisely at that point set, that is precisely at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble lady was saying and the purposes that she was saying and the purposes that she was describing.
My amendment is derives from the debate we had at committee from the debate we had at committee when I didn't have an amendment or anything, but we had a little exchange about why in clause 49, which relates to the surcharge, which is which is can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. And when you reach clause 49, one will see that in in subsection six, it states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to secure that taking one financial year or another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons.
What I noticed in the course of just listening to the debate was that subsection eight, just over the page in the same clause, then says that regulations may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed person. So we have the curious situation in the same clause that we're asked that it should not exceed the costs, and then the regulations have the specific power to exceed the cost. Now, I haven't had a conversation with the noble lady, the minister, but I've been thinking about it quite carefully.
And what I and the purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask if my understanding is correct and if it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly. Which is that subsection eight, that the surcharge could exceed the cost of the listed persons relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the cost of the work done in relation to any individual application.
Subsection six tells us that, in effect, it's not just taking one year with another or looking at the cost, it's looking at the cost across all of these activities and all of these applications. But overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. So I'm hoping that. The that the explanation to the bill is only be referenced in relation to an individual application, and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur in dealing with planning.
Application.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
just wanted to say. Just one. The two things about.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just one. The two things about. amendment. I think it's it. Points in the right direction.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Points in the right direction. But I do. Think we need to be to understand where we end up. If we go in that direction for a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If we go in that direction for a long time, some noble Lords. Will have participated. In the debate we had towards. The latter stages of the last
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The latter stages of the last Parliament about. The new. Regulations relating. To. Planning fees. And of course, one
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning fees. And of course, one of the things that quite forcibly came through from that was that householders, for example, making householders, for example, making applications in relation to their own houses, were paying own houses, were paying significantly less than the cost of their of dealing with their application. So I completely take application. So I completely take the noble Lady Baroness thornhill's point that there is and has been subsequently in the government's changes to the planning charges. changes to the planning charges.
There has been some balancing of that and householders are paying more. But if I understand correctly, more. But if I understand correctly, it is the Baronesses intention noble Ladies intention that that the fees Ladies intention that that the fees that are charged should be proportionate to the number of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
households or the scale of. Development, although that isn't actually what her amendment says. It actually what her amendment says. It simply says that it should be proportionate. It doesn't say proportionate. It doesn't say proportionate to what, and basing it on the size and development could be basing it positively in a positive basing it positively in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. It doesn't. And I'm afraid when you write legislation,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise the noble Lord, Lord banner. And his colleagues.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And his colleagues. Will take it apart. And we don't want that. We want to be very clear want that. We want to be very clear about what we're setting out to achieve. So I do think I'm sure it's not her intention to press the amendment, but I do think it does amendment, but I do think it does raise an important issue. And when ministers are bringing forward the regulations to set out how the regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, that is precisely at that point set, that is precisely at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble lady was saying and the purposes that she was saying and the purposes that she was describing.
My amendment is derives from the debate we had at committee from the debate we had at committee when I didn't have an amendment or anything, but we had a little exchange about why in clause 49, which relates to the surcharge, which is which is can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. And when you reach clause 49, one will see that in in subsection six, it states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to secure that taking one financial year or another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons.
What I noticed in the course of just listening to the debate was that subsection eight, just over the page in the same clause, then says that regulations may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed person. So we have the curious situation in the same clause that we're asked that it should not exceed the costs, and then the regulations have the specific power to exceed the cost. Now, I haven't had a conversation with the noble lady, the minister, but I've been thinking about it quite carefully.
And what I and the purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask if my understanding is correct and if it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly. Which is that subsection eight, that the surcharge could exceed the cost of the listed persons relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the cost of the work done in relation to any individual application.
Subsection six tells us that, in effect, it's not just taking one year with another or looking at the cost, it's looking at the cost across all of these activities and all of these applications. But overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. So I'm hoping that. The that the explanation to the bill is only be referenced in relation to an individual application, and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur in dealing with planning.
Application.
13:28
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Baroness Lady Thornhill, would. Require that any fee or charge set out in regulations. Be appropriate. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. Be proportionate. To the nature and size. Of the development to. Which. It applies.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It applies. Proportionate fees are. Of course. Vital to ensure fairness between applicants and avoid. Placing undue burdens on avoid. Placing undue burdens on smaller developments. However, we cannot support this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment as further prescription flexibility. For. Local authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And the. Secretary of State. To respond to the changing circumstances.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
circumstances. my Lords, we agree with the. Principle of. Proportionality. But we do not think.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But we do not think. hope. That. The noble Lady.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Baroness. Will look at our amendment 103. Later today.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Later today. Amendment 60, tabled by my Noble friend Lady McIntosh, would allow the cost of enforcement measures, the cost of enforcement measures, such as checking whether specific, specified flood mitigation or resilience measures have been resilience measures have been properly installed to be included in the fees. While I entirely agree with the intention to ensure that with the intention to ensure that local planning authorities can recover their costs, we cannot support this amendment. My Lords, we are concerned that this might blur the line between the cost of enforcement and the wider issues of fees, which are separate statutory functions.
Although, my Lords, this is an issue we should continue to look at into the future. Finally, my Lords, turning to amendment 61, tabled by nine Noble friend Lord Lansley, this amendment seeks to reduce what may be included in fees for planning provisions made under subsection five A or five B. I recognise my noble friends concerns over the overreach in fee structures, and I hope the government can take the time today to set out the reasons and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Baroness Lady Thornhill, would. Require that any fee or charge set out in regulations. Be appropriate. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. Be proportionate. To the nature and size. Of the development to. Which. It applies.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It applies. Proportionate fees are. Of course. Vital to ensure fairness between applicants and avoid. Placing undue burdens on avoid. Placing undue burdens on smaller developments. However, we cannot support this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment as further prescription flexibility. For. Local authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And the. Secretary of State. To respond to the changing circumstances.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
circumstances. my Lords, we agree with the. Principle of. Proportionality. But we do not think.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But we do not think. hope. That. The noble Lady.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Baroness. Will look at our amendment 103. Later today.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Later today. Amendment 60, tabled by my Noble friend Lady McIntosh, would allow the cost of enforcement measures, the cost of enforcement measures, such as checking whether specific, specified flood mitigation or resilience measures have been resilience measures have been properly installed to be included in the fees. While I entirely agree with the intention to ensure that with the intention to ensure that local planning authorities can recover their costs, we cannot support this amendment. My Lords, we are concerned that this might blur the line between the cost of enforcement and the wider issues of fees, which are separate statutory functions.
Although, my Lords, this is an issue we should continue to look at into the future. Finally, my Lords, turning to amendment 61, tabled by nine Noble friend Lord Lansley, this amendment seeks to reduce what may be included in fees for planning provisions made under subsection five A or five B. I recognise my noble friends concerns over the overreach in fee structures, and I hope the government can take the time today to set out the reasons and
13:32
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
intentions behind these subsections. intentions behind these subsections. I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions regarding planning fees. Turning first to amendment 59 from the noble Baroness Thornhill, we also had the pleasure Thornhill, we also had the pleasure of briefly touching on this at our meeting last week. I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the type and size of planning application. However, I would application.
However, I would respectfully suggest that the amendment is unnecessary and I'll explain my reasons for saying that explain my reasons for saying that the principle of proportionality already exists within the planning already exists within the planning fees regime, and in view of the noble Baronesses comments, perhaps I can give an example of why I'm saying that planning application saying that planning application fees for fewer than ten new houses are currently £588 per dwelling, between 10 and 50 dwellings. Fees are £635 per dwelling and for more are £635 per dwelling and for more than 50 houses, there's a set fee of than 50 houses, there's a set fee of £31,385, plus £189 for each additional House, up to a maximum additional House, up to a maximum fee of £411,885.
So the fee increases with the number of houses to be built, reflecting the cost to the local planning authority of processing the planning application. The bill already provides a clear and strong framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate to the type and size of development, as mentioned in previous debates, the government plans to introduce a local variation model, under which a nationally set default be developed through benchmarking and public consultation, and I do realise the noble Lady was not confident of that.
But I think talking to the sector about how we do that will be very important and that will serve as a baseline. As is currently the case of planning fees, this will account for variations in the size and the nature of sites to ensure that any locally set fees remain proportionate and reflective of local circumstances, the bill requires that they must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service, and that local communities must be consulted on those proposed changes significantly.
The estate will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate. I think this is a very important safeguard to uphold consistency and fairness across the system. I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned about SMEs, and I had a meeting with them last week. As I've said before, in the chamber with the APPG for SME, House at Home Builders, they raised a number of issues with me. We're all concerned to make sure that we make things as efficient for them as possible, and also those in the charity sector like Centrepoint, who she kindly brought to have a meeting with me last week about providing much needed homes.
I can assure that we recognise that SME home builders are an indispensable part of the sector. That's why the government has brought forward a package of financial support for SMEs, including a £700 million extension to the Home Building Fund, to provide loans of financial support to deliver 12,000 more homes, £2 billion of enabled build guarantees and we have committed to £100 million of funding for SME accelerator loans. In view of these measures, I'm certain the bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve and therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
I'd also like to thank the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh for amendment 60. Well resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development our communities need. They also safeguard those communities from unauthorised or harmful development. Make it by ensuring that compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action where that's necessary. We understand the intention behind the amendment to support the resources enforcement activity, but because planning enforcement serves a much wider public interest, we consider it's appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support those services, rather than for individuals to bear the responsibility.
Additionally, and allowing local planning authorities to set planning phase, which included enforcement costs, we consider this could result in disproportionately high fees for applicants and may indeed impact on the very small builders that the noble Baroness Thornhill was discussing. We're concerned this might discourage development at a time when we're very committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building more widely. The government is committed to a £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities.
For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. My Lords, turning to amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, this amendment would remove our ability to introduce a straightforward planning fee surcharge, instead requiring that only the costs incurred in relation to the specific planning application could be recovered. It might be helpful to elaborate a bit more to answer the noble Lords questions. We do propose to calculate the surcharge on the basis of the planning fee, which a developer must pay when submitting an application.
We recognise that some applications will require detailed input from half a dozen consultees, while others will require little or no input, as we are not calculating the fee on the basis of application specific costs. That means sometimes developers may pay more and sometimes less than the costs incurred by the relevant statutory consultees with regards to that specific application, however, we will be required to set the surcharge so it doesn't exceed the relevant costs of the statutory consultees. In aggregate, if it costs a certain amount to operate the statutory service, then the surcharge must be set so its income does not exceed that amount.
I hope that's helpful. We fully recognise that direct cost recovery works well for some regimes, such as, for instance, where there are relatively few projects, engagement occurs over a longer period of time and predominantly takes place prior to the application for development consent being submitted. It also works well for voluntary pre-application engagement. My Lords, it's important to note that statutory consultation under the Town and Country Planning Act regime is different. It occurs only once the planning application has been submitted. The planning authority must identify which organisations are required to be consulted, and these organisations must respond within statutory timeframes, generally of 21 days.
It's also high volume. The six largest statutory consultees receive around 50,000 consultations a year, with tens of thousands of unnecessary referrals. On top of this, instituting direct cost recovery by statutory consultees would require a billing mechanism capable of dealing with up to hundreds of thousands of planning application referrals each year, with money and information passing between 300 plus local planning authorities and up to 29 statutory consultees and individual developers, it would significantly increase the complexity of the planning system, increase the administrative structure, infrastructure required and place the substantial pressure on the ability of statutory consultees to deliver within statutory timeframes.
Our concern is that instituting this approach would be costly, bureaucratic and create uncertainty for developers over costs and create delays. And just as importantly, it would also remove any incentive for statutory consultees to deliver efficiencies. The alternative, which we are putting forward in the bill, is for a simple, straightforward percentage surcharge on top of the planning fee. This means in some cases, as I've said, a developer will pay more through the surcharge than it will cost the statutory consultee and in some cases they'll pay less.
However, developers will know how much they need to pay upfront and there will be no unexpected costs. And that way we won't be creating more hoops for developers to jump through. In order to get their application considered. They will pay a fee when they submit their application and that's it. We will consult on proposals to establish the level at which the surcharge will be set, and the types of planning application it should apply to before regulations are introduced. Lastly, I want to note that we recognise the risk that charges would be set at inappropriately high levels, and that is why our proposed powers make it clear the surcharge cannot be set at a level which exceeds the relevant costs of the person, such as statutory consultees, which the surcharge is intended to cover.
That ensures we limit ourselves to cost recovery in aggregate, even if it does not apply on the basis of individual planning applications. I would like to thank the noble Lord for this amendment, but I hope, given the reasons I've set out and the explanations, I hope he feels the explanations, I hope he feels able to withdraw his amendment. My Lords, it's absolutely no surprise to me that the noble Lord lands a to me that the noble Lord lands a spot in my drafting omission, which is why we always take his amendments is why we always take his amendments seriously.
But I do hope that the Minister will take on board his comments, which I thought were quite comments, which I thought were quite pertinent. And my Lords, I was just seeking to make proportionality a seeking to make proportionality a clear legal. Duty rather than a well intentioned aspiration. So, put very intentioned aspiration. So, put very simply, I guess it's the proof of the pudding. And watch.
However, I would respectfully suggest that the amendment is unnecessary and I'll explain my reasons for saying that explain my reasons for saying that the principle of proportionality already exists within the planning already exists within the planning fees regime, and in view of the noble Baronesses comments, perhaps I can give an example of why I'm saying that planning application saying that planning application fees for fewer than ten new houses are currently £588 per dwelling, between 10 and 50 dwellings. Fees are £635 per dwelling and for more are £635 per dwelling and for more than 50 houses, there's a set fee of than 50 houses, there's a set fee of £31,385, plus £189 for each additional House, up to a maximum additional House, up to a maximum fee of £411,885.
So the fee increases with the number of houses to be built, reflecting the cost to the local planning authority of processing the planning application. The bill already provides a clear and strong framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate to the type and size of development, as mentioned in previous debates, the government plans to introduce a local variation model, under which a nationally set default be developed through benchmarking and public consultation, and I do realise the noble Lady was not confident of that.
But I think talking to the sector about how we do that will be very important and that will serve as a baseline. As is currently the case of planning fees, this will account for variations in the size and the nature of sites to ensure that any locally set fees remain proportionate and reflective of local circumstances, the bill requires that they must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service, and that local communities must be consulted on those proposed changes significantly.
The estate will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate. I think this is a very important safeguard to uphold consistency and fairness across the system. I understand that the noble Baroness is concerned about SMEs, and I had a meeting with them last week. As I've said before, in the chamber with the APPG for SME, House at Home Builders, they raised a number of issues with me. We're all concerned to make sure that we make things as efficient for them as possible, and also those in the charity sector like Centrepoint, who she kindly brought to have a meeting with me last week about providing much needed homes.
I can assure that we recognise that SME home builders are an indispensable part of the sector. That's why the government has brought forward a package of financial support for SMEs, including a £700 million extension to the Home Building Fund, to provide loans of financial support to deliver 12,000 more homes, £2 billion of enabled build guarantees and we have committed to £100 million of funding for SME accelerator loans. In view of these measures, I'm certain the bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve and therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
I'd also like to thank the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh for amendment 60. Well resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development our communities need. They also safeguard those communities from unauthorised or harmful development. Make it by ensuring that compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action where that's necessary. We understand the intention behind the amendment to support the resources enforcement activity, but because planning enforcement serves a much wider public interest, we consider it's appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support those services, rather than for individuals to bear the responsibility.
Additionally, and allowing local planning authorities to set planning phase, which included enforcement costs, we consider this could result in disproportionately high fees for applicants and may indeed impact on the very small builders that the noble Baroness Thornhill was discussing. We're concerned this might discourage development at a time when we're very committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building more widely. The government is committed to a £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities.
For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. My Lords, turning to amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, this amendment would remove our ability to introduce a straightforward planning fee surcharge, instead requiring that only the costs incurred in relation to the specific planning application could be recovered. It might be helpful to elaborate a bit more to answer the noble Lords questions. We do propose to calculate the surcharge on the basis of the planning fee, which a developer must pay when submitting an application.
We recognise that some applications will require detailed input from half a dozen consultees, while others will require little or no input, as we are not calculating the fee on the basis of application specific costs. That means sometimes developers may pay more and sometimes less than the costs incurred by the relevant statutory consultees with regards to that specific application, however, we will be required to set the surcharge so it doesn't exceed the relevant costs of the statutory consultees. In aggregate, if it costs a certain amount to operate the statutory service, then the surcharge must be set so its income does not exceed that amount.
I hope that's helpful. We fully recognise that direct cost recovery works well for some regimes, such as, for instance, where there are relatively few projects, engagement occurs over a longer period of time and predominantly takes place prior to the application for development consent being submitted. It also works well for voluntary pre-application engagement. My Lords, it's important to note that statutory consultation under the Town and Country Planning Act regime is different. It occurs only once the planning application has been submitted. The planning authority must identify which organisations are required to be consulted, and these organisations must respond within statutory timeframes, generally of 21 days.
It's also high volume. The six largest statutory consultees receive around 50,000 consultations a year, with tens of thousands of unnecessary referrals. On top of this, instituting direct cost recovery by statutory consultees would require a billing mechanism capable of dealing with up to hundreds of thousands of planning application referrals each year, with money and information passing between 300 plus local planning authorities and up to 29 statutory consultees and individual developers, it would significantly increase the complexity of the planning system, increase the administrative structure, infrastructure required and place the substantial pressure on the ability of statutory consultees to deliver within statutory timeframes.
Our concern is that instituting this approach would be costly, bureaucratic and create uncertainty for developers over costs and create delays. And just as importantly, it would also remove any incentive for statutory consultees to deliver efficiencies. The alternative, which we are putting forward in the bill, is for a simple, straightforward percentage surcharge on top of the planning fee. This means in some cases, as I've said, a developer will pay more through the surcharge than it will cost the statutory consultee and in some cases they'll pay less.
However, developers will know how much they need to pay upfront and there will be no unexpected costs. And that way we won't be creating more hoops for developers to jump through. In order to get their application considered. They will pay a fee when they submit their application and that's it. We will consult on proposals to establish the level at which the surcharge will be set, and the types of planning application it should apply to before regulations are introduced. Lastly, I want to note that we recognise the risk that charges would be set at inappropriately high levels, and that is why our proposed powers make it clear the surcharge cannot be set at a level which exceeds the relevant costs of the person, such as statutory consultees, which the surcharge is intended to cover.
That ensures we limit ourselves to cost recovery in aggregate, even if it does not apply on the basis of individual planning applications. I would like to thank the noble Lord for this amendment, but I hope, given the reasons I've set out and the explanations, I hope he feels the explanations, I hope he feels able to withdraw his amendment. My Lords, it's absolutely no surprise to me that the noble Lord lands a to me that the noble Lord lands a spot in my drafting omission, which is why we always take his amendments is why we always take his amendments seriously.
But I do hope that the Minister will take on board his comments, which I thought were quite comments, which I thought were quite pertinent. And my Lords, I was just seeking to make proportionality a seeking to make proportionality a clear legal. Duty rather than a well intentioned aspiration. So, put very intentioned aspiration. So, put very simply, I guess it's the proof of the pudding. And watch.
13:40
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
This space.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will keep. Keep an eye on this, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 60 Baroness McIntosh not moved. Not moved. Amendment 61 Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moved. Not moved. Amendment 61 Lord Lansley not moved. Amendment 62 the Baroness boycott. Oh, OK. Yeah. I rise.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will keep. Keep an eye on this, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 60 Baroness McIntosh not moved. Not moved. Amendment 61 Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moved. Not moved. Amendment 61 Lord Lansley not moved. Amendment 62 the Baroness boycott. Oh, OK. Yeah. I rise.
13:41
Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I rise. To speak to amendment 62. In the name of my Noble friend Baroness Boycott, who.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Boycott, who. Sends her apologies. She's been unavoidably. Detained and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Detained and. So well introduced by the. Baroness Bennett of Barnard
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Bennett of Barnard Castle. This amendment, which is very similar. To one tabled at committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To one tabled at committee. Would mean that the mandatory training for members. Of. Planning committees. Must include climate and biodiversity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
biodiversity. And enhanced ecological literacy training, in. Line with the latest.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Line with the latest. welcome. That the government. Recognises how crucial. Expertise on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Expertise on. Biodiversity issues is for. amendment. Has been revised since Committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Has been revised since Committee. raised. That it did not wish to prescribe
**** Possible New Speaker ****
which. Would needed to be included.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 62 instead simply. Requires that the training the. Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Introduces is delivered in such a way that it promotes a. Science. Based and evidence led approach. On matters related to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On matters related to. Climate change, biodiversity. And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Climate change, biodiversity. And botanical. Ecological surveying. In so doing. The amendment. Recognises the. Importance of retaining.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Importance of retaining. Flexibility and accommodating the fact that there can be developments in new data. That.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That. Will inform training over time. The Home Builders Federation.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Home Builders Federation. The Home. Builders Federation's. 2025 Government Progress Report from August 2025, points to a number of blockers for new housing developments like insufficient resourcing of local planning authorities and support for home authorities and support for home ownership, it says. And I quote however, more broadly, as BNG has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
however, more broadly, as BNG has bedded in issues with its implementation of emerged. As outlined. In a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As outlined. In a. Recent BNG. Hbf report. Unsurprisingly, one key issue is
Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I rise. To speak to amendment 62. In the name of my Noble friend Baroness Boycott, who.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Boycott, who. Sends her apologies. She's been unavoidably. Detained and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Detained and. So well introduced by the. Baroness Bennett of Barnard
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Bennett of Barnard Castle. This amendment, which is very similar. To one tabled at committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To one tabled at committee. Would mean that the mandatory training for members. Of. Planning committees. Must include climate and biodiversity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
biodiversity. And enhanced ecological literacy training, in. Line with the latest.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Line with the latest. welcome. That the government. Recognises how crucial. Expertise on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Expertise on. Biodiversity issues is for. amendment. Has been revised since Committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Has been revised since Committee. raised. That it did not wish to prescribe
**** Possible New Speaker ****
which. Would needed to be included.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 62 instead simply. Requires that the training the. Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Introduces is delivered in such a way that it promotes a. Science. Based and evidence led approach. On matters related to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On matters related to. Climate change, biodiversity. And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Climate change, biodiversity. And botanical. Ecological surveying. In so doing. The amendment. Recognises the. Importance of retaining.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Importance of retaining. Flexibility and accommodating the fact that there can be developments in new data. That.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That. Will inform training over time. The Home Builders Federation.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Home Builders Federation. The Home. Builders Federation's. 2025 Government Progress Report from August 2025, points to a number of blockers for new housing developments like insufficient resourcing of local planning authorities and support for home authorities and support for home ownership, it says. And I quote however, more broadly, as BNG has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
however, more broadly, as BNG has bedded in issues with its implementation of emerged. As outlined. In a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As outlined. In a. Recent BNG. Hbf report. Unsurprisingly, one key issue is