Lords Chamber
Wednesday 22nd October 2025
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
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
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that local authorities do. Not have sufficient capacity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not have sufficient capacity. To process bag applications. With a shortage of public sector ecologists causing increased delays, home builders face before construction can begin.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. Would help unpick this issue, as it would ensure that planning them it would ensure that planning them that planning members have the skills and confidence to interpret skills and confidence to interpret and apply guidance. Not only like being, but also to have a better understanding of the underlying understanding of the underlying evidence around climate change and the environment, and how their decisions impact on local authorities ability to contribute to climate and nature targets. The climate and nature targets.
The problem is that planning committees, and indeed the people supporting them, are stretched, and I'm afraid that if this is not a statutory requirement, the status quo will requirement, the status quo will continue and people will be making decisions without applications about applications, without any scientific understanding of arguably two of the understanding of arguably two of the biggest threats facing us, at least on a domestic basis. And this is not to attack the planning committees at all, but a 2022 survey prepared on behalf of the Association of Local Government Ecologists found that only 5% of respondents said that their current ecological resource, including in-house and external sources, was adequate to scrutinise
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all applications that might affect that. Matches.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Matches. Up with what the noble Lady the minister said at committee when she minister said at committee when she said, and I quote, it would be unthinkable for the training, not to mention that there are special mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain. However, it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
biodiversity net gain. However, it that. In the bill. If trained, the planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If trained, the planning committee can take informed decisions about the ecological benefits and maintenance benefits and maintenance requirements of ecological enhancements. Then this reduces the enhancements. Then this reduces the risk of enforcement actions against the developers in the future, and the developers in the future, and provides people with high quality, nature rich spaces in which to live nature rich spaces in which to live and work, and on the climate side, the noble Lady. The minister didn't really respond to that a committee.
So I would like to know what is So I would like to know what is being done to further this. Giving a duty for science based approach on these issues would be future proof these issues would be future proof and retain necessary flexibility, and not be overly prescriptive, while ensuring that anything built is fit for the future. I'd like to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed. You can find my papers for just a minute.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my papers for just a minute. To. 63.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. 63. Yes, I. Do find that. The member proposed clause 50, page 64, line 32 at end. Insert the words as printed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at end. Insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. my Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Hampton, follow the noble Lord Lord Hampton, who so ably introduced amendment 62, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Boycott. I don't need to add very much, but I do just want to add a couple of extra perspectives. This is an amendment that ensures that that there is training, that that there is training, training for planning members of planning committees and planning officers on climate and biodiversity, and an enhanced biodiversity, and an enhanced ecological literacy.
And I'll particularly applaud the appearance of mycological surveying in here. As someone who's very passionate about soil science. But I won't go further down that road at this moment for down that road at this moment for the House given given the hour. But what I will say is, I think this ties very well with our extensive ties very well with our extensive discussion at Committee on the plans and ideas put forward by the noble Lord, the Lansley, about overall strengthening the planning process, the idea of a planning commissioner, the idea of strengthening planning committees that we need to actually strengthen trust and public and political trust.
And I'll declare here my position as vice president at the Local Government Association and as the noble Lord Wood Hampton said. The lack of resources that local authorities have, and if something isn't statutory, it's very likely it won't get done. It has to be. That's all that local councils have the money to do. And we have a huge problem with lack of trust in politics, lack of faith in politics, concern about the planning system concerned that local voices and concerns are not being heard in the system.
And this is a way of both strengthening the actual system in itself, in technical and scientific terms, but also helping to strengthen the trust in the system, which is really so crucial in terms of restoring trust in our overall political system and our local government system. So I don't know what the noble Lords or the Hampton's plans are, but I think this is something we should think this is something we should think about testing the opinion of the House on. I look forward to hearing maybe the noble Lady the Minister maybe the noble Lady the Minister will tell us that the government's going to follow along these lines, in which case it's not necessary.
in which case it's not necessary. But I think it's really important that we put these principles here on the face of the bill, make them statutory, so then we can assure they will get done, because very likely they won't otherwise. Hear, hear. But, my.
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
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that local authorities do. Not have sufficient capacity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not have sufficient capacity. To process bag applications. With a shortage of public sector ecologists causing increased delays, home builders face before construction can begin.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. Would help unpick this issue, as it would ensure that planning them it would ensure that planning them that planning members have the skills and confidence to interpret skills and confidence to interpret and apply guidance. Not only like being, but also to have a better understanding of the underlying understanding of the underlying evidence around climate change and the environment, and how their decisions impact on local authorities ability to contribute to climate and nature targets. The climate and nature targets.
The problem is that planning committees, and indeed the people supporting them, are stretched, and I'm afraid that if this is not a statutory requirement, the status quo will requirement, the status quo will continue and people will be making decisions without applications about applications, without any scientific understanding of arguably two of the understanding of arguably two of the biggest threats facing us, at least on a domestic basis. And this is not to attack the planning committees at all, but a 2022 survey prepared on behalf of the Association of Local Government Ecologists found that only 5% of respondents said that their current ecological resource, including in-house and external sources, was adequate to scrutinise
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all applications that might affect that. Matches.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Matches. Up with what the noble Lady the minister said at committee when she minister said at committee when she said, and I quote, it would be unthinkable for the training, not to mention that there are special mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain. However, it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
biodiversity net gain. However, it that. In the bill. If trained, the planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If trained, the planning committee can take informed decisions about the ecological benefits and maintenance benefits and maintenance requirements of ecological enhancements. Then this reduces the enhancements. Then this reduces the risk of enforcement actions against the developers in the future, and the developers in the future, and provides people with high quality, nature rich spaces in which to live nature rich spaces in which to live and work, and on the climate side, the noble Lady. The minister didn't really respond to that a committee.
So I would like to know what is So I would like to know what is being done to further this. Giving a duty for science based approach on these issues would be future proof these issues would be future proof and retain necessary flexibility, and not be overly prescriptive, while ensuring that anything built is fit for the future. I'd like to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed. You can find my papers for just a minute.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my papers for just a minute. To. 63.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. 63. Yes, I. Do find that. The member proposed clause 50, page 64, line 32 at end. Insert the words as printed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at end. Insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. my Lords, it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Hampton, follow the noble Lord Lord Hampton, who so ably introduced amendment 62, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Boycott. I don't need to add very much, but I do just want to add a couple of extra perspectives. This is an amendment that ensures that that there is training, that that there is training, training for planning members of planning committees and planning officers on climate and biodiversity, and an enhanced biodiversity, and an enhanced ecological literacy.
And I'll particularly applaud the appearance of mycological surveying in here. As someone who's very passionate about soil science. But I won't go further down that road at this moment for down that road at this moment for the House given given the hour. But what I will say is, I think this ties very well with our extensive ties very well with our extensive discussion at Committee on the plans and ideas put forward by the noble Lord, the Lansley, about overall strengthening the planning process, the idea of a planning commissioner, the idea of strengthening planning committees that we need to actually strengthen trust and public and political trust.
And I'll declare here my position as vice president at the Local Government Association and as the noble Lord Wood Hampton said. The lack of resources that local authorities have, and if something isn't statutory, it's very likely it won't get done. It has to be. That's all that local councils have the money to do. And we have a huge problem with lack of trust in politics, lack of faith in politics, concern about the planning system concerned that local voices and concerns are not being heard in the system.
And this is a way of both strengthening the actual system in itself, in technical and scientific terms, but also helping to strengthen the trust in the system, which is really so crucial in terms of restoring trust in our overall political system and our local government system. So I don't know what the noble Lords or the Hampton's plans are, but I think this is something we should think this is something we should think about testing the opinion of the House on. I look forward to hearing maybe the noble Lady the Minister maybe the noble Lady the Minister will tell us that the government's going to follow along these lines, in which case it's not necessary.
in which case it's not necessary. But I think it's really important that we put these principles here on the face of the bill, make them statutory, so then we can assure they will get done, because very likely they won't otherwise. Hear, hear. But, my.
13:48
-
Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I nobody. I believe, would. Want. To disagree with the fact that members. Of the planning committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I nobody. I believe, would. Want. To disagree with the fact that members. Of the planning committee.
13:49
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the planning committee. Those decision makers. At all levels. And you will remember, my friends, that I placed that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. There's ministers and Secretary of State. To be had the. Equivalent training to those expected.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
training to those expected. Of councillors. I haven't pressed that. Report stage, but.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report stage, but. I am concerned. enumerating. All the essential. Skills that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All the essential. Skills that account. When weighing all the evidence in the balance.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the balance. If we're going to. Cherry pick climate. And quadratus. And field trips on microfossils,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And field trips on microfossils, fungi and. Everything else. I mean, how does that rank. Against the impact on. Residents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Residents. On business. On the economy, on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On the economy, on. The socio economic. Impacts of development? And they are sort. Of subjective, and then we get the objective.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the objective. Ones. Space standards. Designed viability. And. Those other things. And I just think it would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I just think it would be invidious to. Single out. Just climate change and. Microbial fungi and. Those. Sort.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sort. Of on the face of the bill. Look. It seems to me that there. Are regulations.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That have come forward and will have a will have an opportunity to influence those. Potentially at a later date. And the debate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
later date. And the debate. In the Moses room, we can have this debate all over again. But it just seems. To me, and I've sat.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To me, and I've sat. On a planning committee, I've appointed the planning committee. We take our obligations and our own authority to for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Training very seriously. And it's right they do. It costs. Tens of thousands of pounds,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hundreds in some cases. We heard in the previous debate to bring a planning application. Before. And I think. The members of the planning committee should have that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee should have that. Widest experience and. Training, and not. Just necessarily. In the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The issues themselves, but the ability to critically work out for themselves, whether what they are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
themselves, whether what they are being told by officials and quangos is necessarily. Scientifically valid. There are different types.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are different types. Of science and this, this or that. Might I noble friend I wasn't that. Might I noble friend I wasn't making an obligation on I wasn't making a suggestion of whether climate science is there, but there are different levels of science in all manner of different disciplines.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all manner of different disciplines. In planning. And some of it is contested, others not so. And, you know, we just need
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And, you know, we just need that's why we have planning officials, quangos and science. So I cannot.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Support this. And I rise because the noble Lady. Indicated she may want to press
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Indicated she may want to press it to a debate, to a vote. I place. My objection on the record. And I, contrary to my noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I, contrary to my noble friend, I rise to support in part amendment 62. The in part comment is because I do not want climate change
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the planning committee. Those decision makers. At all levels. And you will remember, my friends, that I placed that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. There's ministers and Secretary of State. To be had the. Equivalent training to those expected.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
training to those expected. Of councillors. I haven't pressed that. Report stage, but.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report stage, but. I am concerned. enumerating. All the essential. Skills that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All the essential. Skills that account. When weighing all the evidence in the balance.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the balance. If we're going to. Cherry pick climate. And quadratus. And field trips on microfossils,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And field trips on microfossils, fungi and. Everything else. I mean, how does that rank. Against the impact on. Residents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Residents. On business. On the economy, on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On the economy, on. The socio economic. Impacts of development? And they are sort. Of subjective, and then we get the objective.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the objective. Ones. Space standards. Designed viability. And. Those other things. And I just think it would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I just think it would be invidious to. Single out. Just climate change and. Microbial fungi and. Those. Sort.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sort. Of on the face of the bill. Look. It seems to me that there. Are regulations.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That have come forward and will have a will have an opportunity to influence those. Potentially at a later date. And the debate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
later date. And the debate. In the Moses room, we can have this debate all over again. But it just seems. To me, and I've sat.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To me, and I've sat. On a planning committee, I've appointed the planning committee. We take our obligations and our own authority to for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Training very seriously. And it's right they do. It costs. Tens of thousands of pounds,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
hundreds in some cases. We heard in the previous debate to bring a planning application. Before. And I think. The members of the planning committee should have that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee should have that. Widest experience and. Training, and not. Just necessarily. In the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The issues themselves, but the ability to critically work out for themselves, whether what they are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
themselves, whether what they are being told by officials and quangos is necessarily. Scientifically valid. There are different types.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are different types. Of science and this, this or that. Might I noble friend I wasn't that. Might I noble friend I wasn't making an obligation on I wasn't making a suggestion of whether climate science is there, but there are different levels of science in all manner of different disciplines.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all manner of different disciplines. In planning. And some of it is contested, others not so. And, you know, we just need
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And, you know, we just need that's why we have planning officials, quangos and science. So I cannot.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Support this. And I rise because the noble Lady. Indicated she may want to press
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Indicated she may want to press it to a debate, to a vote. I place. My objection on the record. And I, contrary to my noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I, contrary to my noble friend, I rise to support in part amendment 62. The in part comment is because I do not want climate change
13:51
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
because I do not want climate change to freeze out biodiversity, which is ultimately far more important for local authorities. And they have specific biodiversity duties, whereas they do not have any legal climate change responsibilities. The other bit in part is because whilst I think some of the training here is meritorious, it it need not be mandatory. Well, I, I was privileged to serve on Natural England board for almost seven years and on the extraordinary Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the official advisor to for the four governments to the United Kingdom on all matters of biodiversity, both in the UK and internationally.
All of the top experts in both organisations said that if we could go back to the drawing board, there would not be two UN conventions, one on climate change and one on biodiversity, but just one. Our chairman, Tony Juniper, consistently said there were the two sides of the same coin, and I agree entirely with him. Even if agreeing with Tony may antagonise some of my noble friends around there. The point is that if we saved our peat bogs, planted enough of the right trees and the right place, stop ripping the ocean floor apart, then we would save so much carbon that we would not need to put our industries out of business.
Inflict heat pumps on or on households, and penalise anything which produces carbon. But the consequences of those two conventions, those two conventions, is that all NGOs and governments have focussed heavily on climate change and biodiversity, gets a very poor looking amyloid. That is a tragedy. My Lords a tremendous amount of political will and horrendous expenditure which will impact every person. Then it is possible to reverse climate change. Eventually, however, we're losing species in the world at a phenomenal rate and when a species is gone, it's lost forever.
Forget these gimmicks of restoring mammoths, since most of the species being lost are the unsexy flora and fauna which may be vital to human existence and future. My Lords. Coming to the point of council training, the UK has lost dozens of species. Now even hedgehogs are critically endangered. Also endangered our water voles, turtledoves, farmers and birds and local authorities need to be aware of that. And training for councillors on biodiversity is, in my opinion, quite important, but I cannot find any legal duty on councillors to take into account climate change when making decisions are exempt.
I research this in case my memory was failing and the only law on climate change is the Climate Change Act of 2008, amended in 2019 to are the net zero requirement. All the requirements of the act relate to action by central government and not local authorities. Now, I understand local councils do need to be trained in the legal matters to be taken into consideration when determining a planning application. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, my concern is that over 300 councils have declared a so-called climate emergency, and 85% of them have adopted climate action plans, which are all inconsistent with.
Many of these plans are showboating, but some are meritorious, like Whittle Council's tree planting policy. But that is not a legal requirement. Thus, councillors should receive training in strictly only those matters, which are a legal requirement to be taken into account in a planning application, not something like Waltham Forest policy to divest its pension fund from fossil fuel companies. Now, when we turn to biodiversity, my, we have a completely different scenario since we have lots of legislation on biodiversity, which needs to be taken into account in deciding planning applications.
I'm not going to all the legislation, but the key elements for council, as I suggest, are contained in my Noble friend Lord goes Marvellous Environment Act of 2020. It is a watershed of the sections I will briefly mention just now will deliver nature recovery for the first time, provided that the government does not cut the funding. The key item is Local Nature Recovery Strategies, which councils, NGOs, Defra and Natural England consider to be the main vehicle to bring about nature recovery.
I think all designated areas, or 48 of them, have now completed their lands plans, but I think only five have been published so far. The rest are due to be finished by the end of this year, I think, and the success of the strategies will depend on farmers and landowners doing their bit. Through elms. There is a tragedy that the government is cutting elms funding. So, my Lords, I suggest that local council, the training for local councillors, needs to focus on the 2020 act and the main sections are as follows.
Biodiversity net gain sections 98 to 101. The general duty to enhance and conserve biodiversity. Sections 102 103 Local Nature Recovery Strategies. Sections 104 to 108 species conservation strategies. Section 109 Protection Site Strategies. Section 110 wildlife conservation licences. Section 1118 111 Habitats Regulations amendments, possibly for them 112 123 and conservation covenants which they might come across sections 117 to 139. There may be other things, but I suggest to the House that these key issues are the are the things that local councillors should be informed of and trained on.
Yeah. Now, my Lords are now intrigued by section subsection B of the noble Ladies a noble Baroness amendment that councillors need to be trained in ecological surveying. I can understand the only training they need. There is not to be able to do the survey, but be able to read and understand the technical ecological reports they might receive. And then, my Lords, I turn to the mycological bid. Now, as far as mushrooms are concerned, I initially assumed this was one of those in-jokes we used to have in government that councillors and ministers were treated like mushrooms by their civil servants.
That is kept in the dark and fed a lot of cool stuff. And of course, I can understand that noble Lady Baroness men have been interested in mushrooms. If she invites me to dinner, I hope she will not serve me mushrooms. When in Australia, however Milloy. Seriously, I. I am concerned that the huge increase in the last 12 months of trendy TikTokers deciding that foraging is a is the latest thought and stripping woodlands of far too many mushrooms. And that's just happened in the last 12 months.
Many years ago when I saw Food Minister, I became friends with our wonderful chef Antonio Carluccio, and at various meetings with him, he was he was a mushroom aficionado and after a four course lunch consisted of a mushroom starter, a mushroom mousse boost, a mushroom main course and the delicious mushroom pudding he presented me with the official Italian mushroom picker's knife. I tell you, my Lords Italy takes fungi seriously. It had a little curve blade, a centimetre scale so that no ceps were cut under four centimetres and some others that no, no less than two centimetres and a little brush at the end to clean off the dirt.
Antonio drummed into me that mushrooms should never be washed. There was a minimum. Wait.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I just ask the normal law to actually stick to the amendment? Italian mushrooms might be a very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important issue, but as far as this amendment is concerned, I think it's very discursive. I take the whip's comments with a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I take the whip's comments with a slight pinch of salt. The amendment refer not on my mushrooms. The amendment refers to mushrooms and amendment refers to mushrooms and coating an example of mushrooms, which I think is relevant to the debate. The other thing I'd say to debate. The other thing I'd say to the whip is this if we were working normal hours, then my remarks would probably be shorter in view of the probably be shorter in view of the time scale, since the government has deliberately added an extra three hours to this debate that I think my remarks, which are still only seven remarks, which are still only seven minutes, are quite are quite relevant and opposite.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that I think conclude by saying that I think there's some merit in what the noble Lady has suggested in these amendments, particularly on the biodiversity training. But on the
All of the top experts in both organisations said that if we could go back to the drawing board, there would not be two UN conventions, one on climate change and one on biodiversity, but just one. Our chairman, Tony Juniper, consistently said there were the two sides of the same coin, and I agree entirely with him. Even if agreeing with Tony may antagonise some of my noble friends around there. The point is that if we saved our peat bogs, planted enough of the right trees and the right place, stop ripping the ocean floor apart, then we would save so much carbon that we would not need to put our industries out of business.
Inflict heat pumps on or on households, and penalise anything which produces carbon. But the consequences of those two conventions, those two conventions, is that all NGOs and governments have focussed heavily on climate change and biodiversity, gets a very poor looking amyloid. That is a tragedy. My Lords a tremendous amount of political will and horrendous expenditure which will impact every person. Then it is possible to reverse climate change. Eventually, however, we're losing species in the world at a phenomenal rate and when a species is gone, it's lost forever.
Forget these gimmicks of restoring mammoths, since most of the species being lost are the unsexy flora and fauna which may be vital to human existence and future. My Lords. Coming to the point of council training, the UK has lost dozens of species. Now even hedgehogs are critically endangered. Also endangered our water voles, turtledoves, farmers and birds and local authorities need to be aware of that. And training for councillors on biodiversity is, in my opinion, quite important, but I cannot find any legal duty on councillors to take into account climate change when making decisions are exempt.
I research this in case my memory was failing and the only law on climate change is the Climate Change Act of 2008, amended in 2019 to are the net zero requirement. All the requirements of the act relate to action by central government and not local authorities. Now, I understand local councils do need to be trained in the legal matters to be taken into consideration when determining a planning application. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, my concern is that over 300 councils have declared a so-called climate emergency, and 85% of them have adopted climate action plans, which are all inconsistent with.
Many of these plans are showboating, but some are meritorious, like Whittle Council's tree planting policy. But that is not a legal requirement. Thus, councillors should receive training in strictly only those matters, which are a legal requirement to be taken into account in a planning application, not something like Waltham Forest policy to divest its pension fund from fossil fuel companies. Now, when we turn to biodiversity, my, we have a completely different scenario since we have lots of legislation on biodiversity, which needs to be taken into account in deciding planning applications.
I'm not going to all the legislation, but the key elements for council, as I suggest, are contained in my Noble friend Lord goes Marvellous Environment Act of 2020. It is a watershed of the sections I will briefly mention just now will deliver nature recovery for the first time, provided that the government does not cut the funding. The key item is Local Nature Recovery Strategies, which councils, NGOs, Defra and Natural England consider to be the main vehicle to bring about nature recovery.
I think all designated areas, or 48 of them, have now completed their lands plans, but I think only five have been published so far. The rest are due to be finished by the end of this year, I think, and the success of the strategies will depend on farmers and landowners doing their bit. Through elms. There is a tragedy that the government is cutting elms funding. So, my Lords, I suggest that local council, the training for local councillors, needs to focus on the 2020 act and the main sections are as follows.
Biodiversity net gain sections 98 to 101. The general duty to enhance and conserve biodiversity. Sections 102 103 Local Nature Recovery Strategies. Sections 104 to 108 species conservation strategies. Section 109 Protection Site Strategies. Section 110 wildlife conservation licences. Section 1118 111 Habitats Regulations amendments, possibly for them 112 123 and conservation covenants which they might come across sections 117 to 139. There may be other things, but I suggest to the House that these key issues are the are the things that local councillors should be informed of and trained on.
Yeah. Now, my Lords are now intrigued by section subsection B of the noble Ladies a noble Baroness amendment that councillors need to be trained in ecological surveying. I can understand the only training they need. There is not to be able to do the survey, but be able to read and understand the technical ecological reports they might receive. And then, my Lords, I turn to the mycological bid. Now, as far as mushrooms are concerned, I initially assumed this was one of those in-jokes we used to have in government that councillors and ministers were treated like mushrooms by their civil servants.
That is kept in the dark and fed a lot of cool stuff. And of course, I can understand that noble Lady Baroness men have been interested in mushrooms. If she invites me to dinner, I hope she will not serve me mushrooms. When in Australia, however Milloy. Seriously, I. I am concerned that the huge increase in the last 12 months of trendy TikTokers deciding that foraging is a is the latest thought and stripping woodlands of far too many mushrooms. And that's just happened in the last 12 months.
Many years ago when I saw Food Minister, I became friends with our wonderful chef Antonio Carluccio, and at various meetings with him, he was he was a mushroom aficionado and after a four course lunch consisted of a mushroom starter, a mushroom mousse boost, a mushroom main course and the delicious mushroom pudding he presented me with the official Italian mushroom picker's knife. I tell you, my Lords Italy takes fungi seriously. It had a little curve blade, a centimetre scale so that no ceps were cut under four centimetres and some others that no, no less than two centimetres and a little brush at the end to clean off the dirt.
Antonio drummed into me that mushrooms should never be washed. There was a minimum. Wait.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I just ask the normal law to actually stick to the amendment? Italian mushrooms might be a very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important issue, but as far as this amendment is concerned, I think it's very discursive. I take the whip's comments with a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I take the whip's comments with a slight pinch of salt. The amendment refer not on my mushrooms. The amendment refers to mushrooms and amendment refers to mushrooms and coating an example of mushrooms, which I think is relevant to the debate. The other thing I'd say to debate. The other thing I'd say to the whip is this if we were working normal hours, then my remarks would probably be shorter in view of the probably be shorter in view of the time scale, since the government has deliberately added an extra three hours to this debate that I think my remarks, which are still only seven remarks, which are still only seven minutes, are quite are quite relevant and opposite.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that I think conclude by saying that I think there's some merit in what the noble Lady has suggested in these amendments, particularly on the biodiversity training. But on the
13:59
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
biodiversity training. But on the rest of it, I think we should leave it aside. Yeah. Sits down. I since the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sits down. I since the noble Lord addressed me directly, I do just want to point out that mushrooms are a tiny fraction of the mycological a tiny fraction of the mycological ecosphere, and that what we are talking about here are the fungi that are essential for plants to be able to attract nutrients. It's. And I'll be very happy to discuss all of this with the noble Lord later. this with the noble Lord later.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
biodiversity training. But on the rest of it, I think we should leave it aside. Yeah. Sits down. I since the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sits down. I since the noble Lord addressed me directly, I do just want to point out that mushrooms are a tiny fraction of the mycological a tiny fraction of the mycological ecosphere, and that what we are talking about here are the fungi that are essential for plants to be able to attract nutrients. It's. And I'll be very happy to discuss all of this with the noble Lord later. this with the noble Lord later.
13:59
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
Noble Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In two minutes we will adjourn. You. No. Right.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Right. OK, so, my Lords, the Liberal Democrats have been right from the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Outset of this. Debate on this bill, supported the. Idea of mandatory training.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Idea of mandatory training. committees. And I'm. Pleased that this amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Pleased that this amendment doesn't challenge. That principle.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a good one. My Lords say when a planning. Application is being.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Application is being. Discussed, it is not these days a simple matter of thinking about the simple matter of thinking about the construction. It's also a very important aspect of planning to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important aspect of planning to. Consider the consequences. Of the construction phase and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the construction phase and the future of the environment in which future of the environment in which houses or commercial buildings are. houses or commercial buildings are. Built. As part of that, councillors have a very important duty and responsibility. To consider, as we have heard from the noble Lord Bill and Catherine, biodiversity, net gain, landscaping and the future of habitats as well as. There are not quite sure of how often ecological
**** Possible New Speaker ****
importance of the quote. The ecological surveying. And the. Not all of which, you know, that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is important. So often.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So often. Actually what committees planning committees get concerned about is committees get concerned about is the landscaping proposals. And if the species that are being proposed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the species that are being proposed development. Are not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are not. Appropriate for the biodiversity of that area, then it. Will fail. of that area, then it. Will fail. The test of enhancing the The test of enhancing the environment of the area and equally, the biodiversity net gain. And in the amendments, currently it's 10% and you have to try and get it on, on, on the same site, or you can offset it elsewhere. And actually offset it elsewhere. And actually that is fundamental. To preserving that is fundamental.
To preserving our our environment to ensure that the biodiversity net gain occurs within and on the site. I mean, any, any proposal of a planning committee in my area of where I am a councillor, but not on the planning committee, which does not include the biodiversity net gain on site. Gets a thumbs down from me because why should. Local communities? Not have the environment enhanced and improved where they live? Otherwise what we will see is improvement and enhancement in other parts of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
country and not and some of the places where it's needed most. And so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And so. I have a lot of sympathy with the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the. Noble Lord Hampton. And if they did want to test the opinion of the did want to test the opinion of the House on this matter, then we on these benches would agree with them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK, OK. Here. my Lords, I speak to amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I speak to amendment 62, in the name of the noble Baroness boycott and ably moved by the noble Lord Hampton. Now, while I understand the good intentions behind this amendment, there needs to be a recognition that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In two minutes we will adjourn. You. No. Right.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Right. OK, so, my Lords, the Liberal Democrats have been right from the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Outset of this. Debate on this bill, supported the. Idea of mandatory training.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Idea of mandatory training. committees. And I'm. Pleased that this amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Pleased that this amendment doesn't challenge. That principle.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a good one. My Lords say when a planning. Application is being.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Application is being. Discussed, it is not these days a simple matter of thinking about the simple matter of thinking about the construction. It's also a very important aspect of planning to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important aspect of planning to. Consider the consequences. Of the construction phase and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the construction phase and the future of the environment in which future of the environment in which houses or commercial buildings are. houses or commercial buildings are. Built. As part of that, councillors have a very important duty and responsibility. To consider, as we have heard from the noble Lord Bill and Catherine, biodiversity, net gain, landscaping and the future of habitats as well as. There are not quite sure of how often ecological
**** Possible New Speaker ****
importance of the quote. The ecological surveying. And the. Not all of which, you know, that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is important. So often.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So often. Actually what committees planning committees get concerned about is committees get concerned about is the landscaping proposals. And if the species that are being proposed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the species that are being proposed development. Are not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are not. Appropriate for the biodiversity of that area, then it. Will fail. of that area, then it. Will fail. The test of enhancing the The test of enhancing the environment of the area and equally, the biodiversity net gain. And in the amendments, currently it's 10% and you have to try and get it on, on, on the same site, or you can offset it elsewhere. And actually offset it elsewhere. And actually that is fundamental. To preserving that is fundamental.
To preserving our our environment to ensure that the biodiversity net gain occurs within and on the site. I mean, any, any proposal of a planning committee in my area of where I am a councillor, but not on the planning committee, which does not include the biodiversity net gain on site. Gets a thumbs down from me because why should. Local communities? Not have the environment enhanced and improved where they live? Otherwise what we will see is improvement and enhancement in other parts of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
country and not and some of the places where it's needed most. And so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And so. I have a lot of sympathy with the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the. Noble Lord Hampton. And if they did want to test the opinion of the did want to test the opinion of the House on this matter, then we on these benches would agree with them.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK, OK. Here. my Lords, I speak to amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I speak to amendment 62, in the name of the noble Baroness boycott and ably moved by the noble Lord Hampton. Now, while I understand the good intentions behind this amendment, there needs to be a recognition that the
14:03
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
to be a recognition that the planning process is a quasi judicial process. We also support mandatory training for councillors. And if the noble Lord Fuller's amendment had been written, also officials and potentially government ministers. But that will pass for now that that means training has to be focussed on the statutory. Duty of members, ensuring that those who sit on planning committees are fully aware
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of their roles. The legal and. Regulatory environment and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Regulatory environment and procedures upon which they need to make judgement. That they need to make decisions based on these legal and regulatory aspects pertaining to the proposals brought to the the proposals brought to the committee. Climate change, biodiversity, ecology and so forth biodiversity, ecology and so forth are already embedded in national planning policy and there is planning policy and there is guidance on this, and that guidance will be part and should be part of will be part and should be part of the training process.
By expanding the training process. By expanding the scope of the training beyond the statutory duties and ensuring that the consideration of the relevant legislation and planning guidance is what is used in determining an what is used in determining an application and sorry also and local policies. The proposals risk adding policies. The proposals risk adding confusion to the training process and potentially undermining the and potentially undermining the quasi judicial role of a planning committee. Now, I would have been more sympathetic to proposals more sympathetic to proposals regarding ensuring that the training is effective and that it was covers all aspects of the guidance, policies and legislations, including highlighting those today.
But having training that is more generic, as I said, risks confusion and therefore
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I cannot support these proposals. my Lords, first of all, I would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of their roles. The legal and. Regulatory environment and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Regulatory environment and procedures upon which they need to make judgement. That they need to make decisions based on these legal and regulatory aspects pertaining to the proposals brought to the the proposals brought to the committee. Climate change, biodiversity, ecology and so forth biodiversity, ecology and so forth are already embedded in national planning policy and there is planning policy and there is guidance on this, and that guidance will be part and should be part of will be part and should be part of the training process.
By expanding the training process. By expanding the scope of the training beyond the statutory duties and ensuring that the consideration of the relevant legislation and planning guidance is what is used in determining an what is used in determining an application and sorry also and local policies. The proposals risk adding policies. The proposals risk adding confusion to the training process and potentially undermining the and potentially undermining the quasi judicial role of a planning committee. Now, I would have been more sympathetic to proposals more sympathetic to proposals regarding ensuring that the training is effective and that it was covers all aspects of the guidance, policies and legislations, including highlighting those today.
But having training that is more generic, as I said, risks confusion and therefore
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I cannot support these proposals. my Lords, first of all, I would
14:06
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, first of all, I would like to express my gratitude to noble Lords for providing that broad support for the concept of mandatory support for the concept of mandatory training for members of local planning authorities. Turning now to amendment 62, which has been tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Boycott and ably moved by the noble Lord Hampton, as I set out previously, I'm very sympathetic to the issues raised by noble Lords in the debate at committee stage, and I would like to reiterate what I said at the time, that it would be unthinkable that prescribed training would not, for example, include content on biodiversity net gain.
The government maintains, however, that such specific reference to the content of training should be reserved for secondary legislation. I agree with the local law for once, which is not always the case, to respond to the point about the status quo continuing, this bill brings into force mandatory training for the first time. So it does move us on from what the status quo was to include. Specific details in the bill would require the inclusion of an exhaustive list, which the noble or blank A3 gave some examples of what may or may not be in there, which would have to be kept up to date as we move forward, requiring valuable time in Parliament to respond briefly to the noble Lord Hampton's questions on what's being done.
The government's working to bring forward the training package. We consulted on our general approach earlier this year, and we will ensure the training will be comprehensive, based on best practice and ongoing engagement with both industry and local government. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord Hampton will withdraw this amendment on behalf of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Baroness board. my Lords, I was I've learnt a lot
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I was I've learnt a lot during the last 15 minutes. Some of which I immediately
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Some of which I immediately forgotten. I particularly enjoyed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
playing Catherine's exposition. Stream of consciousness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Stream of consciousness. Mushroom and the. Australian and Australian Cuisine. Comment, which will live with me
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Comment, which will live with me a long time. But I know. The noble. My friend Baroness Boycott did not.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, first of all, I would like to express my gratitude to noble Lords for providing that broad support for the concept of mandatory support for the concept of mandatory training for members of local planning authorities. Turning now to amendment 62, which has been tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Boycott and ably moved by the noble Lord Hampton, as I set out previously, I'm very sympathetic to the issues raised by noble Lords in the debate at committee stage, and I would like to reiterate what I said at the time, that it would be unthinkable that prescribed training would not, for example, include content on biodiversity net gain.
The government maintains, however, that such specific reference to the content of training should be reserved for secondary legislation. I agree with the local law for once, which is not always the case, to respond to the point about the status quo continuing, this bill brings into force mandatory training for the first time. So it does move us on from what the status quo was to include. Specific details in the bill would require the inclusion of an exhaustive list, which the noble or blank A3 gave some examples of what may or may not be in there, which would have to be kept up to date as we move forward, requiring valuable time in Parliament to respond briefly to the noble Lord Hampton's questions on what's being done.
The government's working to bring forward the training package. We consulted on our general approach earlier this year, and we will ensure the training will be comprehensive, based on best practice and ongoing engagement with both industry and local government. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord Hampton will withdraw this amendment on behalf of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Baroness board. my Lords, I was I've learnt a lot
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I was I've learnt a lot during the last 15 minutes. Some of which I immediately
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Some of which I immediately forgotten. I particularly enjoyed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
playing Catherine's exposition. Stream of consciousness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Stream of consciousness. Mushroom and the. Australian and Australian Cuisine. Comment, which will live with me
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Comment, which will live with me a long time. But I know. The noble. My friend Baroness Boycott did not.
14:08
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Boycott did not. Want to. Push. This to a. To a to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ask the question. I very. Optimistic thanks.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To what's the noble Lady the Minister said about mandatory training. Will be comprehensively in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will be comprehensively in the guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. my Lords, we will now take a short break in order for the House short break in order for the House to be readied for oral questions. My therefore beg to move that further consideration on report is adjourned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that further consideration of the report be now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
consideration of the report be now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion say, content the country not content. The contents. Have it. Back to move for the House to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Back to move for the House to adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m. The question is at the House to adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m. As many as are of that opinion say, As many as are of that opinion say, content the country not content. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Boycott did not. Want to. Push. This to a. To a to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ask the question. I very. Optimistic thanks.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To what's the noble Lady the Minister said about mandatory training. Will be comprehensively in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will be comprehensively in the guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. my Lords, we will now take a short break in order for the House short break in order for the House to be readied for oral questions. My therefore beg to move that further consideration on report is adjourned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that further consideration of the report be now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
consideration of the report be now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion say, content the country not content. The contents. Have it. Back to move for the House to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Back to move for the House to adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m. The question is at the House to adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m. As many as are of that opinion say, As many as are of that opinion say, content the country not content. The
15:01
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
First oral question. First oral question. Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town. I beg leave to ask questions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg leave to ask questions. Sami in my name on the Order Paper. my Lords. This government takes
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
First oral question. First oral question. Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town. I beg leave to ask questions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg leave to ask questions. Sami in my name on the Order Paper. my Lords. This government takes
15:01
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. This government takes road safety seriously. We are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our those killed and injured on our roads. We are considering a range of policies under the new road safety strategy, the first for ten years. This includes the case for changing the motoring, changing motoring offences such as drink driving. I can assure the House that as part of this, we are deeply considering concerns raised by campaigners and bereaved families that my ministerial colleagues have met.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. This government takes road safety seriously. We are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our those killed and injured on our roads. We are considering a range of policies under the new road safety strategy, the first for ten years. This includes the case for changing the motoring, changing motoring offences such as drink driving. I can assure the House that as part of this, we are deeply considering concerns raised by campaigners and bereaved families that my ministerial colleagues have met.
15:02
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
I thank the Minister for that reply, and particularly that the government is considering changing offences such as drink driving, reflecting concerns raised by bereaved families such as myself, who lost two members of families to members of my family this way. A fifth the road deaths, but 250 people a year are killed because of drink and drive. And that is equivalent basically to a Boeing 787 crashing every year. Well, I have said one of those did crash every year.
We would take that seriously. Even at 50mg a person is severely impaired. And that's why the police packs. Everyone has called for a reduction to two 50mg. Something supported by three quarters of public. So could the minister urge colleagues to take the possibility seriously of saving the equivalent of a plane crash every year on our roads by reducing that level? roads by reducing that level?
We would take that seriously. Even at 50mg a person is severely impaired. And that's why the police packs. Everyone has called for a reduction to two 50mg. Something supported by three quarters of public. So could the minister urge colleagues to take the possibility seriously of saving the equivalent of a plane crash every year on our roads by reducing that level? roads by reducing that level?
15:03
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
The Honourable friend the has my deep condolences for her family's loss, and I'm sure that's echoed by your Lordships' House. The government view is that driving under the influence of drink is unacceptable and illegal. We are determined to combat this behaviour and ensure that all such drivers are caught and punished. We have a combined approach of tough penalties and rigorous enforcement alongside our highly respected and effective think campaign. This reinforces the social unacceptability of drink driving, reminding people of the serious consequences it has on themselves and others.
We will have more to say.
We will have more to say.
15:03
15:04
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lord is certainly right that the Scottish Government changed the limit. I can't confirm his his the limit. I can't confirm his his own analysis of the results of it. But of course, in, in in determining a new road safety strategy, the government will not only take evidence but but look at what's happened as a consequence of, of different different levels. So whatever he thinks, the effect of it is. And of course it's a consequence both of penalties and enforcement.
The government will think carefully The government will think carefully and act decisively.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lord is certainly right that the Scottish Government changed the limit. I can't confirm his his the limit. I can't confirm his his own analysis of the results of it. But of course, in, in in determining a new road safety strategy, the government will not only take evidence but but look at what's happened as a consequence of, of different different levels. So whatever he thinks, the effect of it is. And of course it's a consequence both of penalties and enforcement.
The government will think carefully The government will think carefully and act decisively.
15:04
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
If I Lords drunk driving as well as drink driving is deadly. So what work is the government carrying out to look at international developments on roadside detection devices, to collect evidence on wider drug misuse whilst driving, such as the inhalation of nitrous oxide? that particular method of drunk driving in London, and I'm very confident that, that the police, the confident that, that the police, the enforcement authorities are working their way through that particular episode.
The government is looking episode. The government is looking carefully at all of the methods of enforcement, including enforcing a enforcement, including enforcing a variety of driving with different, different drugs.
The government is looking episode. The government is looking carefully at all of the methods of enforcement, including enforcing a enforcement, including enforcing a variety of driving with different, different drugs.
15:05
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
The government recognised that young drivers in particular with any alcohol in their bloodstream at all, are at greater risk of other dangerous behaviours. Not using seatbelts and speeding, but that very often in their accidents it's young people or children who are killed or have life changing injuries. And therefore actually we should have a message that if you're drinking, you don't have the car keys.
15:06
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
So the noble Baroness is right. And I think the flagship road safety campaign, the primary audience for that is young men aged 17 to 24. The campaign targets priority issues such as drunk driving and speeding, as well as communicating key policy interventions. There is, of course, a reform of restricting novice drivers, novice drivers through the Road Traffic New Drivers Act 1995 because on acquiring their first full licence, a new driver is on probation for two years and subject to a limit of six penalty points.
15:06
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
But the noble Lord law at least perfectly correct that the reduction of the limit in Scotland did not reduce accidents. In fact, at one point, actually it was 7% higher after the law was changed than before. But the researchers who came to that conclusion, the same researchers, suggested that the policy failed because it was not accompanied by sustained high visibility enforcement, such as random breath tests, and he argued that the law needed that because otherwise would not deter what they call high risk offenders who regularly go over the limit.
15:07
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
I think by noble friend for that intervention. And of course, enforcement is absolutely necessary. Your Lordships' House know that enforcement is a matter for chief police officers, but it is a matter that that they consider very carefully. And of course, it's very it's not difficult to agree with him that rigorous enforcement is entirely needed in these circumstances in order to effectively police any limit.
15:07
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
But minorities. So I beg your pardon. May I my Lords come back to the question of drug driving raised by the noble Baroness Lady Pidgeon? Nobody expects there to be a roadside test available for drug driving is as effectively as a breathalyser is for alcohol. But what in particular is the department doing given that figures from that from the department showed that there are now more deaths from drug driving and from drink driving, what is the department doing in terms of training or other equipment that would assist the police in roadside enforcement, which really, it has been shown, is the most effective way of deterring this activity.
Thank you. Very good.
Thank you. Very good.
15:08
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
Thank you. Well, of course, there's there are a variety of drugs which need to be tested in different ways. The department is very concerned about drug driving, and we'll be looking at it again in the in the course of the revised road safety strategy. He's right that detection is more difficult because of the variety of drugs. But the department is looking carefully at it because the enforcement effort has to be consistent over, over drugs and drink.
15:09
The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)
my Lords, the Road Victims Trust does very important work in terms of supporting those families who are affected by the actions of drink drivers and drug drivers. It's a charity that relies mostly on public donations. What could the minister do to encourage police and crime commissioners to support the work of the road victims trust you? Their grant making?
15:10
Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Balfe (Conservative)
I'm told that the programme for drug testing on driving is in serious disarray, with many people's samples just not being tested as the minister considered using breath as well as blood tests. And can the minister look at sorting it out? Because I'm told that there are now thousands of tests now standing which have not been moved towards prosecution. prosecution.
15:10
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
I'm not an expert in how you test those things, but I'm disturbed to hear something that I hadn't heard previously, which is the suggestion that that programme is in disarray. I will go away and find out whether or not the government believes it's in disarray. And if it is what, what, what, what's to be done about it and what will be done about it. And I'll write the noble Lord.
15:11
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
-
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
The noble Lord the minister aware that in 1998 the Labour government then was minded to make this change, and moving from 80 down to 50, we are now the only country in Europe that is still on 80. Everyone else has gone down to 50. The Welsh Government have asked and sought permission to introduce the change. Even if we don't do it for England, can we at least let the Welsh do what they want to do?
15:11
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
Yeah, OK. we were deeply considering the concerns raised, was that the opportunity of the new race road safety strategy gives just the opportunity to consider whether or not reducing the limit is the right thing to do, which is what we're going to do. And in the process of that, I've heard clearly what many people have said today, and we will go away and reflect and consider, because this is a really important matter. Hoey.
15:11
15:12
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name. On the order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ireland and the EU would require the application of personal allowances and associated border allowances and associated border checks to prevent the uncontrolled flow of tax free goods into either flow of tax free goods into either Northern Ireland or to the EU. The enforcement controls required for this would run counter to the Windsor framework, and the principle
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ireland and the EU would require the application of personal allowances and associated border allowances and associated border checks to prevent the uncontrolled flow of tax free goods into either flow of tax free goods into either Northern Ireland or to the EU. The enforcement controls required for this would run counter to the Windsor framework, and the principle
15:12
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Windsor framework, and the principle of the frictionless movement of people and goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Oh Lord, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Minister. For. That. Rather predictable answer. But could I press him? Does he understand the frustration and the anger that families in Northern Ireland have when they travel on their well-earned holidays to sunny.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parts of. The EU and cannot get duty free, while other citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom can? Does he also understand that Northern Ireland's small airports are costing them small airports are costing them about £5 million a year by not having duty free? Does he have any sympathy or empathy with the people of Northern Ireland, and will he make a commitment for His Majesty's Government that when they're Government that when they're involved in this much heralded reset, that this will be one of the may seem minor issues to some may seem minor issues to some people, but it's quite an important issue.
Will that be one of the issues that will be negotiated with
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Windsor framework, and the principle of the frictionless movement of people and goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Oh Lord, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Minister. For. That. Rather predictable answer. But could I press him? Does he understand the frustration and the anger that families in Northern Ireland have when they travel on their well-earned holidays to sunny.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parts of. The EU and cannot get duty free, while other citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom can? Does he also understand that Northern Ireland's small airports are costing them small airports are costing them about £5 million a year by not having duty free? Does he have any sympathy or empathy with the people of Northern Ireland, and will he make a commitment for His Majesty's Government that when they're Government that when they're involved in this much heralded reset, that this will be one of the may seem minor issues to some may seem minor issues to some people, but it's quite an important issue.
Will that be one of the issues that will be negotiated with
15:13
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the European Union to change? I'm grateful to the noble Lady for her question. She says that my for her question. She says that my answer was predictable. Let me just say one thing that was entirely predictable, and that was the impact
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Brexit, which she campaigned for. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Back in 2016, Sir John Major and Sir Tony Blair both said very clearly that Brexit would present specific challenges for Northern Ireland, given its land border with an EU member state and the an EU member state and the importance of safeguarding the Good Friday Agreement. Yet the noble lady Friday Agreement. Yet the noble lady dismissed those concerns. Now that the reality of Brexit doesn't match up to the fantasy version that she up to the fantasy version that she had, she's now seeking to blame others for the consequences of her own actions.
Let's be very, very own actions. Let's be very, very clear. The winds are framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland's unique circumstance. She asked if I have empathy. Absolutely. Placing Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the beneficial position within the United Kingdom by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods, providing significant opportunities for growth and ensuring there is no hard border on the island of Ireland. She on the island of Ireland.
She mentioned the reset absolutely. As part of the EU reset, the UK and EU have agreed to negotiate an SPS agreement. I would urge the noble Lady to support that reset.
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the European Union to change? I'm grateful to the noble Lady for her question. She says that my for her question. She says that my answer was predictable. Let me just say one thing that was entirely predictable, and that was the impact
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Brexit, which she campaigned for. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Back in 2016, Sir John Major and Sir Tony Blair both said very clearly that Brexit would present specific challenges for Northern Ireland, given its land border with an EU member state and the an EU member state and the importance of safeguarding the Good Friday Agreement. Yet the noble lady Friday Agreement. Yet the noble lady dismissed those concerns. Now that the reality of Brexit doesn't match up to the fantasy version that she up to the fantasy version that she had, she's now seeking to blame others for the consequences of her own actions.
Let's be very, very own actions. Let's be very, very clear. The winds are framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland's unique circumstance. She asked if I have empathy. Absolutely. Placing Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the beneficial position within the United Kingdom by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods, providing significant opportunities for growth and ensuring there is no hard border on the island of Ireland. She on the island of Ireland.
She mentioned the reset absolutely. As part of the EU reset, the UK and EU have agreed to negotiate an SPS agreement. I would urge the noble Lady to support that reset.
15:14
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lady to support that reset. Yeah, I know, my Lords. My Lords. Could I ask my Noble friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And the Minister? Would he agree with me that it would be much better? And for members of your Lordship's voice, and to argue and to underpin the value of the dual to underpin the value of the dual market access for people, for businesses and for communities in businesses and for communities in Northern Ireland, to be able to avail of access to the UK internal market and the EU single market. And could I agree with my friend the Minister when he said that Brexit Minister when he said that Brexit was the cause of all these difficulties and had been much difficulties and had been much better if members sought to a work to eradicate those difficulties and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to eradicate those difficulties and challenges presented by the Windsor framework to underpin our local economy. Yeah.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lady to support that reset. Yeah, I know, my Lords. My Lords. Could I ask my Noble friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And the Minister? Would he agree with me that it would be much better? And for members of your Lordship's voice, and to argue and to underpin the value of the dual to underpin the value of the dual market access for people, for businesses and for communities in businesses and for communities in Northern Ireland, to be able to avail of access to the UK internal market and the EU single market. And could I agree with my friend the Minister when he said that Brexit Minister when he said that Brexit was the cause of all these difficulties and had been much difficulties and had been much better if members sought to a work to eradicate those difficulties and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to eradicate those difficulties and challenges presented by the Windsor framework to underpin our local economy. Yeah.
15:15
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Well, I'm very grateful to my noble friend for a question. I agree with every word that she that she said. The Windsor framework obviously is a workable and the best workable solution to Northern Ireland's unique circumstances. And as she absolutely says, it does place Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the United Kingdom, something I hope that we can make a lot of by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods that provides significant opportunities for growth.
And of course, it ensures there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Well, I'm very grateful to my noble friend for a question. I agree with every word that she that she said. The Windsor framework obviously is a workable and the best workable solution to Northern Ireland's unique circumstances. And as she absolutely says, it does place Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the United Kingdom, something I hope that we can make a lot of by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods that provides significant opportunities for growth.
And of course, it ensures there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.
15:16
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
my Lords, my Lords, only lords, my Lords. OK, Lords, the Minister highlights the principle rationale for their not being duty free at Northern Ireland airports when flying to the EU, as being to maintain frictionless trade with the Irish Republic, presumably on flights to the Irish Republic. But as the Minister, aware there is not a single flight, goes from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. So when the Minister agree that we are left in the absurd position of creating an additional problem to solve one particular problem, which in practice does not actually exist.
Yeah.
Yeah.
15:16
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
If I could just clarify for the noble Lords, I'm grateful to him for his question. The original question asked about flights from Belfast to the European Union. And that is what this question is about. I should just be very, very clear. If you have duty free, you have to have allowances. If you have allowances, you have to have checks and enforcement. If you have checks, you have to have border infrastructure. And border infrastructure is contrary to the Windsor framework and to the Good Friday Agreement.
15:17
15:17
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
Well, again, I think this may have been one of the fantasies that people had about certain Brexit outcomes rather than reflecting reality. What we have ended up with, and I pay tribute to the previous government for negotiating this. The Windsor framework, as I say, is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland's unique circumstances and we absolutely support the implementation of the Windsor framework. framework.
15:17
Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness O'Loan (Crossbench)
Can I just say gently to my frustration? described a very glowing situation in Northern Ireland, which is not necessarily the experience of the people in Northern Ireland subsequent to the Windsor framework. Whilst accepting that the Windsor framework is what we've got to live with at the moment. Does the noble Lord the Minister accept that there are many problems, that people can't get access to many goods and services, and that goods are increasingly not being supplied to Northern Ireland because of the bureaucratic difficulties in the economic costs.
And with the noble Lord, the Minister commit to considering all these matters and to bringing forward a reset which actually does benefit Northern Ireland.
And with the noble Lord, the Minister commit to considering all these matters and to bringing forward a reset which actually does benefit Northern Ireland.
15:18
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
I'm grateful to the noble Lady for her question and for her insight. Absolutely. I mean, I should say up front, as I've said before, we are committed to implementing the Windsor framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. We will obviously work constructively with all stakeholders the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, businesses, political parties and civil society in Northern Ireland to achieve the same, taking into account the implementation deadlines and as as the noble Lady says, the Windsor Framework Agreement did secure substantial legally binding changes and flexibilities that I think do improve things.
But I hope also that the EU reset will further improve things. And as I say, I urge all noble Lords to support the EU in that regard.
But I hope also that the EU reset will further improve things. And as I say, I urge all noble Lords to support the EU in that regard.
15:19
Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
I noticed that my noble friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Please start. With the governor.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Please start. With the Lib Dems. Next they will have a noble friend broken.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have a noble friend broken. government. Please start to renegotiate our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
entry into the customs union? It would eliminate the issues. Raised by. Baroness Hoey and many others and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Please start. With the governor.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Please start. With the Lib Dems. Next they will have a noble friend broken.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have a noble friend broken. government. Please start to renegotiate our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
entry into the customs union? It would eliminate the issues. Raised by. Baroness Hoey and many others and
15:19
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Hoey and many others and increase prosperity for all of us. There is a very simple and direct set of answers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. I'm grateful to the noble Lady
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the noble Lady for her question and I pay tribute to her consistency on this matter. We share many similarities and our We share many similarities and our observations about the impact of Brexit and our analysis of the impact of Brexit. She will know that we are engaged in the EU reset. I think that will achieve substantial benefits for growth in the UK and for travel, and of British citizens around the European Union. And again, I urge you to support the reset that we're engaged in.
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Hoey and many others and increase prosperity for all of us. There is a very simple and direct set of answers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. I'm grateful to the noble Lady
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the noble Lady for her question and I pay tribute to her consistency on this matter. We share many similarities and our We share many similarities and our observations about the impact of Brexit and our analysis of the impact of Brexit. She will know that we are engaged in the EU reset. I think that will achieve substantial benefits for growth in the UK and for travel, and of British citizens around the European Union. And again, I urge you to support the reset that we're engaged in.
15:20
Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
Lord Grocott (Labour)
My noble friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Others that I've heard in reply on the passion that he feels for the for the European Union. It's a for the European Union. It's a passion not not shared by everyone.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And some of us remember the 40 years when. We're in the European Union were not exactly. Years flowing with milk and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Honey as far. As the. British. Economy was concerned. So.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Economy was concerned. So. So can I ask my noble friend friend? Can I ask my noble friend?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
friend? Can I ask my noble friend? You'll notice the support. He gets from the Liberal. Democrat benches, but. Could I could I have his.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Assurance that we stand very strongly by the. Labour government's manifesto promise. That there will be no question.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That there will be no question. Of us. Rejoining either the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Others that I've heard in reply on the passion that he feels for the for the European Union. It's a for the European Union. It's a passion not not shared by everyone.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And some of us remember the 40 years when. We're in the European Union were not exactly. Years flowing with milk and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Honey as far. As the. British. Economy was concerned. So.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Economy was concerned. So. So can I ask my noble friend friend? Can I ask my noble friend?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
friend? Can I ask my noble friend? You'll notice the support. He gets from the Liberal. Democrat benches, but. Could I could I have his.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Assurance that we stand very strongly by the. Labour government's manifesto promise. That there will be no question.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That there will be no question. Of us. Rejoining either the
15:21
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
customs. Union or the single market.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, my noble friend and I am sure agree on many things, but Brexit is not one of the things that Brexit is not one of the things that my noble friend and I agree on. I hope when he talks about our experience in the European Union, he experience in the European Union, he will acknowledge the fact the OBR calculations that had we remained in the European Union by and by the end of this Parliament, the economy would be £100 billion larger than it would be otherwise.
I think that would be otherwise. I think that this a significant dis benefit to Brexit. And as my noble friend
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, my noble friend and I am sure agree on many things, but Brexit is not one of the things that Brexit is not one of the things that my noble friend and I agree on. I hope when he talks about our experience in the European Union, he experience in the European Union, he will acknowledge the fact the OBR calculations that had we remained in the European Union by and by the end of this Parliament, the economy would be £100 billion larger than it would be otherwise.
I think that would be otherwise. I think that this a significant dis benefit to Brexit. And as my noble friend
15:22
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
knows, the manifesto starts. Lords returning to the question, we, these benches, fully recognise
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we, these benches, fully recognise reached. Between the previous. Administration and the European Union. However, I think there's a Union. However, I think there's a legitimate question about whether practical solutions could now be explored. To address the specific anomaly with the minister, consider supporting a joint UK EU technical group to examine practical options for restoring duty free parity for Northern Ireland travellers, which could overcome the difficulties the Minister outlined. That is a process that could be undertaken without undermining the Windsor framework.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
knows, the manifesto starts. Lords returning to the question, we, these benches, fully recognise
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we, these benches, fully recognise reached. Between the previous. Administration and the European Union. However, I think there's a Union. However, I think there's a legitimate question about whether practical solutions could now be explored. To address the specific anomaly with the minister, consider supporting a joint UK EU technical group to examine practical options for restoring duty free parity for Northern Ireland travellers, which could overcome the difficulties the Minister outlined. That is a process that could be undertaken without undermining the Windsor framework.
15:22
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
Well, let me just be absolutely clear again. If you have duty free, you have to have allowances. If you have allowances, you have to have checks and enforcement. If you have checks, you have to have border infrastructure. And if you have border infrastructure, that would be contrary to the Windsor framework and the Good Friday Agreement.
15:22
15:22
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
The question standing in the Order Paper. circumstances, open access operations can provide benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers, but they can also increase cost to taxpayers and create additional performance pressures on an already constrained network. Large areas of the network are already operating at full capacity, and additional open access services can exacerbate constraints along the busiest corridors of the network and impact operators abilities to operate revenue generating services that would reduce taxpayer subsidy. reduce taxpayer subsidy.
15:23
Lord Snape (Labour)
-
-
Lord Snape (Labour)
At my lodge. I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Goodi assure me that any further applications for open access trains will not prejudice the existing train paths, particularly on the East and West Coast Main Lines, and particularly those train paths reserved for freight trains. If the government is to meet its target of increasing rail freight by 75% by over the next few years, could I further ask him if he believes that the fact that open access trains enjoy a different charging regime from those companies, including the state owned companies who run the majority of services, whether that that change, that different regime leads to a more profitable situation as far as open access trains are concerned and whether you will do anything about it.
anything about it.
anything about it.
15:24
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
So my noble friend is correct. Both the East Coast and West Coast Main lines are now heavily constrained, and recent applications considered by the Office of Rail and Road, the regulator under the current arrangements have declined. Most of the additional applications to train cars because simply there is no room. And he's also right to suggest that actually we need to leave room for increased freight operations as a general consensus that more railway freight is good for the it's good for the economy and the environment.
And it would it would be right to leave paths for freight expansion. In respect of his question about profitability. So it was recently reported that First Group's open access business achieved a 32% operating profit in the third and 20 2425 financial year. These profits arise because open access operators don't pay the full cost of accessing the track, nor do they have to meet public service obligations to operate the services most people need. This allows them to offer reduced fares and provide journeys only between the most profitable locations.
Currently, Lumo is the only open access operator that contributes towards fixed costs for an infrastructure cost charge, and that leaves taxpayers to fill the shortfalls. The Railways Bill will change the arrangements for will propose to change the arrangements for access, and will consider what needs to be done in respect of charging. Further.
And it would it would be right to leave paths for freight expansion. In respect of his question about profitability. So it was recently reported that First Group's open access business achieved a 32% operating profit in the third and 20 2425 financial year. These profits arise because open access operators don't pay the full cost of accessing the track, nor do they have to meet public service obligations to operate the services most people need. This allows them to offer reduced fares and provide journeys only between the most profitable locations.
Currently, Lumo is the only open access operator that contributes towards fixed costs for an infrastructure cost charge, and that leaves taxpayers to fill the shortfalls. The Railways Bill will change the arrangements for will propose to change the arrangements for access, and will consider what needs to be done in respect of charging. Further.
15:25
15:25
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
has intended to increase rail freight by 75%. How are both of those trains?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm surprised that the noble Lord doesn't know the answer to that. That's one of the many former Secretaries of State for transport Secretaries of State for transport in the in the room. But the answer is, of course, that there are protected freight paths on all the protected freight paths on all the main lines in in all the main lines, which are likely to carry freight in order that freight operators can order that freight operators can both respond to short term demand measures, which they do frequently, measures, which they do frequently, and change trains on a daily and weekly basis, and also have room for expansion.
And it is important that they're left to do that. Otherwise, there is no chance of a freight expansion. And in fact, the freight,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm surprised that the noble Lord doesn't know the answer to that. That's one of the many former Secretaries of State for transport Secretaries of State for transport in the in the room. But the answer is, of course, that there are protected freight paths on all the protected freight paths on all the main lines in in all the main lines, which are likely to carry freight in order that freight operators can order that freight operators can both respond to short term demand measures, which they do frequently, measures, which they do frequently, and change trains on a daily and weekly basis, and also have room for expansion.
And it is important that they're left to do that. Otherwise, there is no chance of a freight expansion. And in fact, the freight,
15:26
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expansion. And in fact, the freight, the commercial freight businesses would be damaged. Lords under the New World of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords under the New World of Great British Railways, will the government allow existing open access operators to continue their access operators to continue their current routes beyond the current permissions granted by the author? Even with a new charging regime?
Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expansion. And in fact, the freight, the commercial freight businesses would be damaged. Lords under the New World of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords under the New World of Great British Railways, will the government allow existing open access operators to continue their access operators to continue their current routes beyond the current permissions granted by the author? Even with a new charging regime?
15:26
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
The noble Baroness has a good point. The commitments made in terms the regulator necessarily needs to give a successful open access. Application sufficient time to recover the significant costs of rolling stock. So many of these arrangements run for at least ten years, and of course, it would not be right at all to curtail those activities because because serious investment has been carried out in order to allow them. Now, what happens in the future? We can debate in the course of the Railways Bill, but for the moment, those open access operations that have tenure or other or other similar periods, curiosity will continue.
15:27
-
my Lords, I spent 32.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Years of my career working in the public sector and came to understand the objective was the needs of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Years of my career working in the public sector and came to understand the objective was the needs of the
15:27
Lord Tunnicliffe (Labour)
-
-
Lord Tunnicliffe (Labour)
the objective was the needs of the customer value for the taxpayer, protection of the environment and having regard in general for society in general. Open access, on the other hand, tends to create conflict, encourages gaming, the regulator, inhibits evolutionary change. Will the noble Lord. The minister exercised extreme caution when considering open access bids.
15:28
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
I listen to my noble friend with with care and respect because he he he has significant prior experience in actually running, running railways and he is right that we should be careful because we're only dealing with 1% of the passengers when the rest of the network has 99%. We should be careful to allow people to innovate where innovation is a good thing to do, and with their space for it. We should not allow innovation where actually it's not a good thing to do.
It cost the taxpayers money and it can't be accommodated on a very constrained network. I don't.
It cost the taxpayers money and it can't be accommodated on a very constrained network. I don't.
15:28
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
Want, oh, come on, dissatisfying.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think a lot of people would think listening into this quite dissatisfying and perplexing to hear this sort of hate fest against public, against open access public, against open access services, which are the most popular with commuters and which should with commuters and which should drive down competition, drive down prices where they exist and give consumers what they're actually consumers what they're actually looking for. Now, under the government's proposals, the decision about whether open access will be about whether open access will be granted for new or continued services will be transferred from an services will be transferred from an independent regulator to Great British Rail, which is, of course, an interested party as a provider of an interested party as a provider of competing services.
Does not the attitude expressed by the noble Lord, the Minister, show how unfit for purpose that for that purpose the new Great British Railways is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think a lot of people would think listening into this quite dissatisfying and perplexing to hear this sort of hate fest against public, against open access public, against open access services, which are the most popular with commuters and which should with commuters and which should drive down competition, drive down prices where they exist and give consumers what they're actually consumers what they're actually looking for. Now, under the government's proposals, the decision about whether open access will be about whether open access will be granted for new or continued services will be transferred from an services will be transferred from an independent regulator to Great British Rail, which is, of course, an interested party as a provider of an interested party as a provider of competing services.
Does not the attitude expressed by the noble Lord, the Minister, show how unfit for purpose that for that purpose the new Great British Railways is
15:29
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
the new Great British Railways is going to be. When they start with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
such an antagonistic disposition. The noble Lords trunk his own Kool-Aid. A bit on this, because I made it quite clear that there are benefits to be provided. He also benefits to be provided. He also needs to do a bit of careful research because there are very few commuters on open access services. Commuting is one of the things that has a high fixed cost and generally doesn't cover the cost of its operations. Open access is successful for people making long distance journeys irregularly and so distance journeys irregularly and so on.
Some of the operators are very good at it, but he also refers to the future Railways Bill, where the future Railways Bill, where we've already made it quite clear that Great British Railways needs to be the needs to be the body that be the needs to be the body that decides who implements the timetable, because currently there isn't one. It will have to have some isn't one. It will have to have some rules for access to the railway which will start, which will be developed from the current rules and developed from the current rules and will be consulted.
And if other if third parties believe that they have been disadvantaged by GBR, not been disadvantaged by GBR, not following its own rules or doing something in the wrong way, then our proposal will be that they have they proposal will be that they have they have the ability to appeal to the independent regulator. I think that's perfectly fair. But I also that's perfectly fair. But I also think that it's really, really important that your Lordships' House recognise that nobody is currently in charge of the national railway timetable except the Secretary of State and me outside North Korea.
That is really not a good circumstance. That but further to circumstance. That but further to Lord Tunnicliffe question, come noble Lord, the minister confirmed Britain's. Britain's.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
such an antagonistic disposition. The noble Lords trunk his own Kool-Aid. A bit on this, because I made it quite clear that there are benefits to be provided. He also benefits to be provided. He also needs to do a bit of careful research because there are very few commuters on open access services. Commuting is one of the things that has a high fixed cost and generally doesn't cover the cost of its operations. Open access is successful for people making long distance journeys irregularly and so distance journeys irregularly and so on.
Some of the operators are very good at it, but he also refers to the future Railways Bill, where the future Railways Bill, where we've already made it quite clear that Great British Railways needs to be the needs to be the body that be the needs to be the body that decides who implements the timetable, because currently there isn't one. It will have to have some isn't one. It will have to have some rules for access to the railway which will start, which will be developed from the current rules and developed from the current rules and will be consulted.
And if other if third parties believe that they have been disadvantaged by GBR, not been disadvantaged by GBR, not following its own rules or doing something in the wrong way, then our proposal will be that they have they proposal will be that they have they have the ability to appeal to the independent regulator. I think that's perfectly fair. But I also that's perfectly fair. But I also think that it's really, really important that your Lordships' House recognise that nobody is currently in charge of the national railway timetable except the Secretary of State and me outside North Korea.
That is really not a good circumstance. That but further to circumstance. That but further to Lord Tunnicliffe question, come noble Lord, the minister confirmed Britain's. Britain's.
15:31
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
Offer choice for travellers.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not served by. Other operators. So will he condemn the words. Of. Mick Welham.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not served by. Other operators. So will he condemn the words. Of. Mick Welham.
15:31
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mick Welham. The general secretary of Aslef. Who described open access operators as parasites?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
operators as parasites? Oh, shocking, shocking. I think the railway trade unions are quite capable of speaking for are quite capable of speaking for themselves and, and he's right. I did say that open access provides benefits such as improved connectivity and choice of passengers. They do provide jobs, though. The House might like to note that currently Hull Trains has been in dispute since February with their own drivers, which which is a dispute that's shows no signs of being resolved and also results in a reduced service for which the operator hold trains owned by FirstGroup has no substitute.
FirstGroup has no substitute.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mick Welham. The general secretary of Aslef. Who described open access operators as parasites?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
operators as parasites? Oh, shocking, shocking. I think the railway trade unions are quite capable of speaking for are quite capable of speaking for themselves and, and he's right. I did say that open access provides benefits such as improved connectivity and choice of passengers. They do provide jobs, though. The House might like to note that currently Hull Trains has been in dispute since February with their own drivers, which which is a dispute that's shows no signs of being resolved and also results in a reduced service for which the operator hold trains owned by FirstGroup has no substitute.
FirstGroup has no substitute.
15:32
15:32
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
The curtailment of phase two I of HS2 was a peremptory decision, taken with little thought, and I would suggest no good information. The result of it is, as the noble Lord says, that the West Coast Main Line is currently full, as decided independently by the regulator, who declined all of the applications for open access on it. This government has to consider very, very carefully what it now does with with the results of this peremptory decision cancelling a railway to Manchester in Manchester is a pretty crazy thing to do.
But that's what happened and we will be back in due course to say what our proposition is, having thought about it a good deal more carefully than the last government did.
But that's what happened and we will be back in due course to say what our proposition is, having thought about it a good deal more carefully than the last government did.
15:33
15:33
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
And I'm here again. The United Kingdom is disappointed that adoption of the IMO net zero framework has been delayed by a year. This stalls crucial efforts to give the maritime sector regulatory certainty and respond swiftly to the urgent threat of climate change. We remain committed to working with the other IMO states to secure adoption of the framework next year. We hope that the regulations can take effect as soon as possible, potentially in 2029 at the earliest. 2029 at the earliest.
response.
response.
15:34
Lord Mountevans (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Mountevans (Crossbench)
my Lords, given the urgency for climate action and the industry's need for certainty, does the noble Lord the Minister agree it is vital to maintain momentum despite the IMO delay? Will the government commit to continuing its input during the intersession period, helping shape the technical framework, building consensus and ensuring the competitiveness of the UK shipping agreement?
15:34
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
Yeah, I. that is yes. Adopting the IMO net zero framework is vital for climate action and giving industry the certainty it needs to make net zero shipping a reality. The UK will maximise its effort, as he suggests, to maintain momentum so the framework can be adopted next year. We are committed to working with others at the IMO, which we are honoured to host here in London, and industry generally to progress the necessary intersectional work to shape the frameworks technicalities.
15:35
15:35
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
worldwide basis? It sounds a pretty
**** Possible New Speaker ****
horrendous task. The purpose of the IMO, of course, is to have an international convention way of policing things, because shipping is necessarily because shipping is necessarily carried out at sea. So policing in it's in the sense in which you know it's in the sense in which you know it in, in, in, in, in communities doesn't work. The way it works is doesn't work. The way it works is that the IMO resolves as a whole to have binding regulations, and that is what's being discussed at the is what's being discussed at the moment.
I think what's important is that we, we, we desperately need to that we, we, we desperately need to give some certainty to people who invest large sums of money into the long term on this and this. This long term on this and this. This government is determined to drive this forward in order to give that certainty, both for decarbonisation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
horrendous task. The purpose of the IMO, of course, is to have an international convention way of policing things, because shipping is necessarily because shipping is necessarily carried out at sea. So policing in it's in the sense in which you know it's in the sense in which you know it in, in, in, in, in communities doesn't work. The way it works is doesn't work. The way it works is that the IMO resolves as a whole to have binding regulations, and that is what's being discussed at the is what's being discussed at the moment.
I think what's important is that we, we, we desperately need to that we, we, we desperately need to give some certainty to people who invest large sums of money into the long term on this and this. This long term on this and this. This government is determined to drive this forward in order to give that certainty, both for decarbonisation
15:36
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
certainty, both for decarbonisation and for the healthy shipping market. my Lords, last week in London,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, last week in London, only 49 of the 127 delegates. That's something just about a third voted for the net zero framework.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for the net zero framework. Does the Minister agree with. Me that the IMO. Would be well. Advised to focus a little bit
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Advised to focus a little bit more time in the interregnum on things like the uninsured dark fleet unwinding the insanity where the. Charterer pays the ship owners. Ballast legs, and not. Penalising those large ships which are significantly more fuel efficient than the small ones perforate. Sorry.
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
certainty, both for decarbonisation and for the healthy shipping market. my Lords, last week in London,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, last week in London, only 49 of the 127 delegates. That's something just about a third voted for the net zero framework.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for the net zero framework. Does the Minister agree with. Me that the IMO. Would be well. Advised to focus a little bit
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Advised to focus a little bit more time in the interregnum on things like the uninsured dark fleet unwinding the insanity where the. Charterer pays the ship owners. Ballast legs, and not. Penalising those large ships which are significantly more fuel efficient than the small ones perforate. Sorry.
15:37
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
I recognise the noble Lord has extensive experience, but I think that he must agree that that that the subject under discussion, which is that the decision to defer last week, is far from the only thing that the International Maritime Organisation does. Some of the things he's listed are, of course, very important, and I've no doubt that we will press the IMO not only to move forward with the decarbonisation agenda, but also deal with those the things on his list.
15:37
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
I know it is these really important negotiations were effectively torpedoed by the Trump administration using quite unpleasant tactics at the last moment. So can I take this opportunity to ask the minister what reassessment the UK government is making of how we can further our international climate objectives with those who support us in the wake of a more hostile American administration? Yeah, yeah, yeah. administration? Yeah, yeah, yeah.
15:38
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
If we're to play the role that we should in the IMO, then we have to respect the policy positions of other IMO member states. That means working with people who support our position, trying to persuade those who don't that they're wrong. And we should and they should change. And that's precisely what we will what we will continue to do with, with, with new vigour. Following last week's decision.
15:38
Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
Lord Beamish (Labour)
my Lords, I agree with the my friend. That the decision that I made was very disappointing. But he will know that UK shipbuilders and designers are actually at the forefront of options for green shipping. Can you give a commitment from the government that that will continue in spite of this delay? continue in spite of this delay?
15:38
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
I think I noble friend he's absolutely right. UK shipbuilders and designers are in the forefront, and that's why it's very important for this government to continue to support those efforts, because we need we need that for our economy. We need it for our position on climate change. And what's good for world.
15:39
15:39
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
my Lords, given the apparently implacable hostility of the United States. Administration and the very low number of states that did actually vote for this framework in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
London last week, is the. Government not. Deluding itself in thinking that one more heave and will will achieve it next year? Would it not be better if the IMO were guided by the government were to focus? As my noble friend suggests? Lord Fuller noble friend suggests? Lord Fuller on the on the question of the Dark Fleet, which is being used to, to ship sanctioned oil around the world in a way that only benefits
**** Possible New Speaker ****
London last week, is the. Government not. Deluding itself in thinking that one more heave and will will achieve it next year? Would it not be better if the IMO were guided by the government were to focus? As my noble friend suggests? Lord Fuller noble friend suggests? Lord Fuller on the on the question of the Dark Fleet, which is being used to, to ship sanctioned oil around the world in a way that only benefits
15:40
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
in a way that only benefits dictators. Would it not be sensible to get real about some of these things? Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very good. I think the noble Lord needs to recognise that a worldwide recognise that a worldwide organisation like the IMO can do more things than one at the same time. And what he says about the time. And what he says about the Dark Fleet and what the noble Lord had previously said about the Dark Fleet is right and the IMO should, Fleet is right and the IMO should, should, should challenge it and do what it can about it. But he just what it can about it.
But he just heard that UK shipbuilders and designers are in the forefront of designing new low and no carbon shipping, and it would be an awful shame if the opposition benches shame if the opposition benches weren't to support a good piece of British economy, which has the potential to sell not only in in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very good. I think the noble Lord needs to recognise that a worldwide recognise that a worldwide organisation like the IMO can do more things than one at the same time. And what he says about the time. And what he says about the Dark Fleet and what the noble Lord had previously said about the Dark Fleet is right and the IMO should, Fleet is right and the IMO should, should, should challenge it and do what it can about it. But he just what it can about it.
But he just heard that UK shipbuilders and designers are in the forefront of designing new low and no carbon shipping, and it would be an awful shame if the opposition benches shame if the opposition benches weren't to support a good piece of British economy, which has the potential to sell not only in in
15:41
Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
potential to sell not only in in Britain but around the world. But my Lords. my Lords. Following up on the. Noble Earls
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Following up on the. Noble Earls point, the. Trump. Administration unequivocally rejected the net zero framework, but rejected the net zero framework, but it went much further than that. It issued warnings on measures it could take against countries voting against the framework, including blocking vessels from US ports, imposing new regulation and extra visa restrictions, and applying commercial penalties on government contracts. What is the Minister's reaction to this kind of pressure? Gosh. Gosh.
Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
potential to sell not only in in Britain but around the world. But my Lords. my Lords. Following up on the. Noble Earls
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Following up on the. Noble Earls point, the. Trump. Administration unequivocally rejected the net zero framework, but rejected the net zero framework, but it went much further than that. It issued warnings on measures it could take against countries voting against the framework, including blocking vessels from US ports, imposing new regulation and extra visa restrictions, and applying commercial penalties on government contracts. What is the Minister's reaction to this kind of pressure? Gosh. Gosh.
15:41
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 reaction to that sort of pressure is that we're a member of the IMO. We're an important member. We need to persuade others to support us. And following last Friday's decision, we will renew our efforts with those who also support us to persuade people who don't agree with this that this is the right thing for international shipping. It's the right thing for low carbon. We have an important place in the world, and we and we need to pursue those arguments at the IMO and outside it in order to in order to make progress.
in order to make progress.
in order to make progress.
15:42
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
Still recognise that that carbon emissions from shipping is a significant contributor to global warming. Is there any possibility, given the difficulty of global agreement for any sort of regional agreement and regional enforcement on a European scale for vessels that pass through the channel, visit to European ports across and across the North Sea, we're conscious that if there were regulation of ships passing through the English Channel, the Dark Fleet will be affected. If ships in the Marshall Islands registered and the Marshall Islands came into European ports and were refused permission to unload there, there would be some sort of resource of enforcement condiments to give some attention to the possibility of some regional enforcement mechanism.
some regional enforcement mechanism.
some regional enforcement mechanism.
15:43
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
I will certainly take away the noble Lords suggestion of regional action, but it isn't the same as a worldwide agreement to change the way the to change emissions, emissions from shipping. And we shouldn't shy away from trying to persuade people of that, not least because actually the technology used will be always be better and cheaper if it's if it's used worldwide, then it would be only in one region of the world.
15:43
Business of the House
-
Business of the House
my Lords that concludes oral questions for today. This is the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House, the Lord Privy Seal. my Lords, affects me with the motion standing in my name on the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, I do have a sense of deja vu in moving this motion today, so just say a few motion today, so just say a few words about why it appears on the Order Paper in July. Following helpful and constructive helpful and constructive discussions, the usual channels, the House agreed to suspend the peers by House agreed to suspend the peers by elections for 18 months.
That's 18 months has now passed, and if you were to do nothing, they would have to restart. I think my Lords, all of us listening to discussions we have us listening to discussions we have had recently and agreed by the usual channels that is not desirable to restart this by elections, and that suspension of the by election should continue to the end of this current continue to the end of this current session. So this motion therefore extends the suspension until the spring, when we expect the current spring, when we expect the current session to end.
My Lords, I hope this motion, having listened to the debates we've had recently on this debates we've had recently on this related issues, reflects the will of the House, and I hope that members the House, and I hope that members will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this motion be agreed to as many of that opinion, say 'content'. Contents. It's not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The contents have it. Lords, this may be an appropriate moment for noble Lords to leave the chamber. Is Is no Is no longer. Is no longer.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Questions on an answer to an Urgent Question asked in the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House, the Lord Privy Seal. my Lords, affects me with the motion standing in my name on the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, I do have a sense of deja vu in moving this motion today, so just say a few motion today, so just say a few words about why it appears on the Order Paper in July. Following helpful and constructive helpful and constructive discussions, the usual channels, the House agreed to suspend the peers by House agreed to suspend the peers by elections for 18 months.
That's 18 months has now passed, and if you were to do nothing, they would have to restart. I think my Lords, all of us listening to discussions we have us listening to discussions we have had recently and agreed by the usual channels that is not desirable to restart this by elections, and that suspension of the by election should continue to the end of this current continue to the end of this current session. So this motion therefore extends the suspension until the spring, when we expect the current spring, when we expect the current session to end.
My Lords, I hope this motion, having listened to the debates we've had recently on this debates we've had recently on this related issues, reflects the will of the House, and I hope that members the House, and I hope that members will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this motion be agreed to as many of that opinion, say 'content'. Contents. It's not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The contents have it. Lords, this may be an appropriate moment for noble Lords to leave the chamber. Is Is no Is no longer. Is no longer.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Questions on an answer to an Urgent Question asked in the House
15:46
15:46
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. my Lords, this is a shameful state of affairs, sending a message to the groups of fans and indeed groups of people across our country groups of people across our country are not safe on the streets of Britain. Can the noble Baroness the Minister tell us when the government was first told by the Safety advisory Group that it was intending to advise a ban on fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending this football match, were any government departments besides her own notified before DCMS was aware of it?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. my Lords, this is a shameful state of affairs, sending a message to the groups of fans and indeed groups of people across our country groups of people across our country are not safe on the streets of Britain. Can the noble Baroness the Minister tell us when the government was first told by the Safety advisory Group that it was intending to advise a ban on fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending this football match, were any government departments besides her own notified before DCMS was aware of it?
15:47
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
my Lords, I would like to very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
much associate myself with. The sentiment of being appalled
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The sentiment of being appalled that the noble Lord presented at the outset discrimination in all its outset discrimination in all its forms, including anti Semitism, is fundamentally opposed to our British fundamentally opposed to our British values of fairness, decency and respect. In relation to the noble Lords question, the Home Office through the UK Football Policing Unit, was involved in the risk assessment process led by the West assessment process led by the West Midlands Police, banning away fans as one of a package of potential operational operations options being considered.
The initial ban was only confirmed by Birmingham City Council confirmed by Birmingham City Council last Thursday, and this is when the Secretary of State, DCMS and broader
**** Possible New Speaker ****
much associate myself with. The sentiment of being appalled
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The sentiment of being appalled that the noble Lord presented at the outset discrimination in all its outset discrimination in all its forms, including anti Semitism, is fundamentally opposed to our British fundamentally opposed to our British values of fairness, decency and respect. In relation to the noble Lords question, the Home Office through the UK Football Policing Unit, was involved in the risk assessment process led by the West assessment process led by the West Midlands Police, banning away fans as one of a package of potential operational operations options being considered.
The initial ban was only confirmed by Birmingham City Council confirmed by Birmingham City Council last Thursday, and this is when the Secretary of State, DCMS and broader
15:48
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary of State, DCMS and broader government intervention began. Lords. The government gave. An immense go a. Little bit.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Little bit. Further about the government's activity. It is quite clear this was not a conventional situation. When the local boards are operating, was there not some structure? Isn't there some structure by where this intelligence can be brought forward to make sure that people that the local authorities know there is support and from outside available to them, as the government seemed to be telling us now, there was. be telling us now, there was.
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary of State, DCMS and broader government intervention began. Lords. The government gave. An immense go a. Little bit.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Little bit. Further about the government's activity. It is quite clear this was not a conventional situation. When the local boards are operating, was there not some structure? Isn't there some structure by where this intelligence can be brought forward to make sure that people that the local authorities know there is support and from outside available to them, as the government seemed to be telling us now, there was. be telling us now, there was.
15:48
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
I think clearly we need we need to look at how how it was that no request for additional resources through mutual aid, which is quite a standard process, was sought beforehand. But I would like to assure you, Lordships House, that as soon as it was made known that this was a decision, the Culture Secretary, the Home Secretary and the community secretaries had extensive discussions with the police, local government and others trying to come up with a form of support that will enable would enable the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to be present at the match.
Noble Lords would be aware, however, that since that since then Maccabi Tel Aviv have decided to refuse any allocation of tickets. But I would like to assure the noble Lord that the government was very active in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trying to resolve the issue, particularly over the weekend after this had become known. My I know.
Noble Lords would be aware, however, that since that since then Maccabi Tel Aviv have decided to refuse any allocation of tickets. But I would like to assure the noble Lord that the government was very active in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trying to resolve the issue, particularly over the weekend after this had become known. My I know.
15:49
Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My I know. What does the Minister agree that this incident has increased the this incident has increased the perception of the UK here and abroad as an unpleasant, indeed hostile place for the Jewish community and the obsession of some politicians with banning the attendance of our McAuley has increased it. Does the Minister agree it's not enough for the government to carry on saying we will not tolerate anti-Semitism. It's not enough for the government to say, here's a few more million pounds for security that is just whac-a-mole.
Instead of spending money on security, the government needs to get to the roots of where anti-Semitism is coming from, and I suggest it has come from the way young people being taught nonsense about colonialism and apartheid, and from religious teaching. Does the minister agree with me? It's time to bring together all the Jewish organisations and get their collective wisdom to deal with the roots of this, not just sticking more plaster on it?
Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My I know. What does the Minister agree that this incident has increased the this incident has increased the perception of the UK here and abroad as an unpleasant, indeed hostile place for the Jewish community and the obsession of some politicians with banning the attendance of our McAuley has increased it. Does the Minister agree it's not enough for the government to carry on saying we will not tolerate anti-Semitism. It's not enough for the government to say, here's a few more million pounds for security that is just whac-a-mole.
Instead of spending money on security, the government needs to get to the roots of where anti-Semitism is coming from, and I suggest it has come from the way young people being taught nonsense about colonialism and apartheid, and from religious teaching. Does the minister agree with me? It's time to bring together all the Jewish organisations and get their collective wisdom to deal with the roots of this, not just sticking more plaster on it?
15:50
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So we know people are scared, including people in your Lordships including people in your Lordships House. And we also know that there isn't an easy answer, but no answer is appropriate without the involvement of the community. And involvement of the community. And this government is working with the community to try and address this. community to try and address this. Anti-Semitism is an age old hatred and responsibility of each and every one of us to fix what is clearly one of us to fix what is clearly broken, and we will use every lever available to the government to make sure that we build community sure that we build community cohesion and tackle extremist hate wherever it's found across society.
wherever it's found across society. And I, I know all my colleagues would agree with me that words
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So we know people are scared, including people in your Lordships including people in your Lordships House. And we also know that there isn't an easy answer, but no answer is appropriate without the involvement of the community. And involvement of the community. And this government is working with the community to try and address this. community to try and address this. Anti-Semitism is an age old hatred and responsibility of each and every one of us to fix what is clearly one of us to fix what is clearly broken, and we will use every lever available to the government to make sure that we build community sure that we build community cohesion and tackle extremist hate wherever it's found across society.
wherever it's found across society. And I, I know all my colleagues would agree with me that words
15:51
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would agree with me that words aren't enough. We will take the this. On the one side.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would agree with me that words aren't enough. We will take the this. On the one side.
15:51
Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On the one side. And my interest is set out in the register. What plans does the government have to ensure that it can call in and, if necessary, overturn decisions made by safety advisory groups? And what would the implications be for operational independence of Chief Constable's?
Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On the one side. And my interest is set out in the register. What plans does the government have to ensure that it can call in and, if necessary, overturn decisions made by safety advisory groups? And what would the implications be for operational independence of Chief Constable's?
15:51
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
The government. operational independence of the police. I think it's one of our fundamental sort of tenets of our democracy. The safety advisory group role has obviously been much debated, but it is generally seen as a as a role that works consistently and has that advisory function. What I think would have been desirable here would have been for those discussions take place and be escalated sooner before the decision was made, and that's a matter for the MHCLG to deal with going forward.
However, at the moment MHCLG is working very hard on the immediate issue around community cohesion, but I think that it is right that we that we allow operational decisions to be made by the appropriate people, but I think we also need that to be within the wider context. And clearly there was a much wider context and much wider potential repercussions and of the decision. And that would be a matter for MHCLG to have in discussion with local government.
local government.
However, at the moment MHCLG is working very hard on the immediate issue around community cohesion, but I think that it is right that we that we allow operational decisions to be made by the appropriate people, but I think we also need that to be within the wider context. And clearly there was a much wider context and much wider potential repercussions and of the decision. And that would be a matter for MHCLG to have in discussion with local government.
local government.
15:53
Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
Says it's the long established principle set out in law that the Safety Advisory Group are operationally independent of government and it's for them to take decisions on safety, as repeated by the Minister today. But will the Minister agree that this is only half the story? The Safety of Sports Grounds Act, which are piloted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
through another place as minister responsible, ensure that the. Safety advisory.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Groups must routinely consider relevant government advice. And. Policies such as Home Office and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Policies such as Home Office and crowd management, for example. So why did it take until the weekend to offer clear, unequivocal advice that offer clear, unequivocal advice that nobody in our country would be excluded from football matches because of who they are, and then because of who they are, and then legally held beliefs? And can she assure the House that discussions were underway with safety advisory were underway with safety advisory groups to ensure the full protection of Jewish community fan groups that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
through another place as minister responsible, ensure that the. Safety advisory.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Groups must routinely consider relevant government advice. And. Policies such as Home Office and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Policies such as Home Office and crowd management, for example. So why did it take until the weekend to offer clear, unequivocal advice that offer clear, unequivocal advice that nobody in our country would be excluded from football matches because of who they are, and then because of who they are, and then legally held beliefs? And can she assure the House that discussions were underway with safety advisory were underway with safety advisory groups to ensure the full protection of Jewish community fan groups that
15:54
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Jewish community fan groups that future? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Relation to. The noble Lord second point,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lord second point, absolutely. The safety of Jewish absolutely. The safety of Jewish fans is, is of utmost importance and priority to this government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think. On the safety advisory group, my I haven't been party to all those discussions with, with, all those discussions with, with, with the people concerned, but I can only my understanding is that those the resource implications just simply didn't get escalated to the simply didn't get escalated to the right level. That's not an excuse for that happening. Now that we know for that happening. Now that we know that happened, we can address it for future. And I know that my colleagues across government
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Jewish community fan groups that future? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Relation to. The noble Lord second point,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lord second point, absolutely. The safety of Jewish absolutely. The safety of Jewish fans is, is of utmost importance and priority to this government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think. On the safety advisory group, my I haven't been party to all those discussions with, with, all those discussions with, with, with the people concerned, but I can only my understanding is that those the resource implications just simply didn't get escalated to the simply didn't get escalated to the right level. That's not an excuse for that happening. Now that we know for that happening. Now that we know that happened, we can address it for future. And I know that my colleagues across government
15:55
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
colleagues across government desperately keen to make sure that that happens. But surely the this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But surely the this. Imagery and racist comments by a local Member of Parliament in this local Member of Parliament in this matter are an absolute disgrace and are contrary to all decent contacts of concepts of British values shared by almost every Muslim, as well as every Jew in our population.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
colleagues across government desperately keen to make sure that that happens. But surely the this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But surely the this. Imagery and racist comments by a local Member of Parliament in this local Member of Parliament in this matter are an absolute disgrace and are contrary to all decent contacts of concepts of British values shared by almost every Muslim, as well as every Jew in our population.
15:55
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Agree more wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. I found it the noble Lord. I found it absolutely appalling that a Member of Parliament would initiate a petition of the nature and content petition of the nature and content that that the relevant local MP did. I think that it also highlights the I think that it also highlights the need for us to be clear that while we might want political interference we might want political interference through the government, in one way, political interference was clearly also at the heart of what went wrong in this instance.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Agree more wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. I found it the noble Lord. I found it absolutely appalling that a Member of Parliament would initiate a petition of the nature and content petition of the nature and content that that the relevant local MP did. I think that it also highlights the I think that it also highlights the need for us to be clear that while we might want political interference we might want political interference through the government, in one way, political interference was clearly also at the heart of what went wrong in this instance.
15:56
Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in this instance. I know my. I know it. Seems clear that. The motivation locally was in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The motivation locally was in fact to boycott Israel. But nonetheless, I think it is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But nonetheless, I think it is clear it. Is necessary. To. Get clear the. The degree of blame.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The degree of blame. That's been attributed. To the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv. There is an account in the Guardian
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is an account in the Guardian today which seems seriously distorted. Has the government. At. Least for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At. Least for. For all useful. Purposes, got clear in its own mind that while there may well have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
mind that while there may well have been bad behaviour. Hooligans, even some racist behaviour by a minority. Of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fans in Amsterdam, the majority of the of the harm was committed against them, not by them. I think against them, not by them. I think it is important to capture the picture that the government had of what happened in Amsterdam, because
Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in this instance. I know my. I know it. Seems clear that. The motivation locally was in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The motivation locally was in fact to boycott Israel. But nonetheless, I think it is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But nonetheless, I think it is clear it. Is necessary. To. Get clear the. The degree of blame.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The degree of blame. That's been attributed. To the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv. There is an account in the Guardian
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There is an account in the Guardian today which seems seriously distorted. Has the government. At. Least for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At. Least for. For all useful. Purposes, got clear in its own mind that while there may well have
**** Possible New Speaker ****
mind that while there may well have been bad behaviour. Hooligans, even some racist behaviour by a minority. Of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fans in Amsterdam, the majority of the of the harm was committed against them, not by them. I think against them, not by them. I think it is important to capture the picture that the government had of what happened in Amsterdam, because
15:57
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what happened in Amsterdam, because it's been recycled a lot. Yeah. My understanding what happened in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My understanding what happened in Amsterdam is, is that that the noble Lady has just outlined. I think one Lady has just outlined. I think one of the things that I found most appalling about the decision that was made was it was based on the risk to fans primarily, and we cannot have a situation in which fans who are at risk in a in a country where we manage violence associated with football on a regular basis, we cannot have a situation in which it is the risk to fans.
That means that those fans
**** Possible New Speaker ****
themselves are barred from a sporting or other public event. Yeah. Well, it's the time alone for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, it's the time alone for this question is no one laughs. Should we go straight on to the next question, or do you want to next question, or do you want to take a moment just to recycle the benches? Take a moment.
Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what happened in Amsterdam, because it's been recycled a lot. Yeah. My understanding what happened in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My understanding what happened in Amsterdam is, is that that the noble Lady has just outlined. I think one Lady has just outlined. I think one of the things that I found most appalling about the decision that was made was it was based on the risk to fans primarily, and we cannot have a situation in which fans who are at risk in a in a country where we manage violence associated with football on a regular basis, we cannot have a situation in which it is the risk to fans.
That means that those fans
**** Possible New Speaker ****
themselves are barred from a sporting or other public event. Yeah. Well, it's the time alone for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, it's the time alone for this question is no one laughs. Should we go straight on to the next question, or do you want to next question, or do you want to take a moment just to recycle the benches? Take a moment.
15:58
Urgent Question Repeat: Recent criticism of the national statutory inquiry into the rape gang scandal
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lord, My Lord, shall My Lord, shall we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, shall we continue? Questions on an answer to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons yesterday on the inquiry
Urgent Question Repeat: Recent criticism of the national statutory inquiry into the rape gang scandal
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lord, My Lord, shall My Lord, shall we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, shall we continue? Questions on an answer to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons yesterday on the inquiry
15:58
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
into rape gangs. my Lords were not dating the other place on the progress of the other place on the progress of the National Inquiry on Child grooming gangs. On the 2nd of September, the Minister for safeguarding said and I quote most importantly, the Chair must have the credibility and experience to command the confidence of victims and survivors as well as the wider public. Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount. But my Lords, four months on from the announcement of this inquiry, there are no terms of reference, no Chair and four of the victims have resigned from the victims and Survivors panel.
How does the government seriously still believe that this inquiry will have the confidence of the victims when all evidence points to the contrary?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
into rape gangs. my Lords were not dating the other place on the progress of the other place on the progress of the National Inquiry on Child grooming gangs. On the 2nd of September, the Minister for safeguarding said and I quote most importantly, the Chair must have the credibility and experience to command the confidence of victims and survivors as well as the wider public. Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount. But my Lords, four months on from the announcement of this inquiry, there are no terms of reference, no Chair and four of the victims have resigned from the victims and Survivors panel.
How does the government seriously still believe that this inquiry will have the confidence of the victims when all evidence points to the contrary?
15:59
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
I'm grateful to noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cameron. First of all, can I say to him that. When the infected blood inquiry. Was established. And when the Covid inquiry.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And when the Covid inquiry. Was. Established, it took seven. Months to put in place a Chair, and we're currently now at the very late
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we're currently now at the very late stages of determining who the Chair very. Important, as you said, that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Important, as you said, that the inquiry and the Chair and the terms of reference have the. Confidence of victims and survivors, and I'm sorry that a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
survivors, and I'm sorry that a number of victims and survivors. Have walked away from the process. They will be welcomed back should they wish to do so. But we're should they wish to do so. But we're working very closely with the charity and WG to ensure that there
**** Possible New Speaker ****
charity and WG to ensure that there are a range of victims who put their views to this purpose, and they are. Doing that currently. I believe
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Doing that currently. I believe we'll be in a position very shortly to establish the inquiry with the terms of reference, to ensure that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
terms of reference, to ensure that we do what we said we were. Going. To. Do. On the ten, which is meet the objectives of Baroness case, he said objectives of Baroness case, he said of a national inquiry focusing on grooming gangs and focusing on the ethnicity issue as well. And I hope ethnicity issue as well. And I hope we will have our full support from him and his colleagues in doing those very important tasks.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
those very important tasks. The public trust in statutory inquiries is already fragile. It's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
weakened by concerns about. Independence. Delay and failure to act on recommendations. Take the G inquiry, for example. It took seven years, it reported in October 2022, but only a tiny percentage of the recommendations have so far been implemented. This inquiry must be led by victims and survivors. Their led by victims and survivors. Their involvement is essential to its integrity and to uncovering the integrity and to uncovering the truth. The inquiry must go where the truth.
The inquiry must go where the evidence takes it and if there is any suggestion that there was racial and religious dimensions of abuse and religious dimensions of abuse and these are found to be true, then they must not be minimised. So can I they must not be minimised. So can I ask the Minister if he can give an unequivocal assurance that these issues will be addressed directly, and say what steps will be taken to ensure that this inquiry's ensure that this inquiry's recommendation, unlike so many before, are fully implemented? before, are fully implemented? Yeah, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness.
Can I just give her and refer it to the statement that the Home Secretary made in response to the issues that arose out of the Urgent Question in the House of Commons yesterday? And the Home Secretary has said today that the inquiry will explicitly examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders, as well as, obviously, if there are offenders who have been in grooming gangs, which are not from a particular ethnic minority, then that is also important that their examination of those issues is paramount.
She will know that we've set a time limit on the inquiry. We want that inquiry to report speedily because the important thing is to get recommendations. And I'm very clear, as the minister responsible for inquiries in the Home Office, that we need to get an inquiry result, get the recommendations out and very importantly, see them through as a matter of some urgency.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cameron. First of all, can I say to him that. When the infected blood inquiry. Was established. And when the Covid inquiry.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And when the Covid inquiry. Was. Established, it took seven. Months to put in place a Chair, and we're currently now at the very late
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we're currently now at the very late stages of determining who the Chair very. Important, as you said, that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Important, as you said, that the inquiry and the Chair and the terms of reference have the. Confidence of victims and survivors, and I'm sorry that a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
survivors, and I'm sorry that a number of victims and survivors. Have walked away from the process. They will be welcomed back should they wish to do so. But we're should they wish to do so. But we're working very closely with the charity and WG to ensure that there
**** Possible New Speaker ****
charity and WG to ensure that there are a range of victims who put their views to this purpose, and they are. Doing that currently. I believe
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Doing that currently. I believe we'll be in a position very shortly to establish the inquiry with the terms of reference, to ensure that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
terms of reference, to ensure that we do what we said we were. Going. To. Do. On the ten, which is meet the objectives of Baroness case, he said objectives of Baroness case, he said of a national inquiry focusing on grooming gangs and focusing on the ethnicity issue as well. And I hope ethnicity issue as well. And I hope we will have our full support from him and his colleagues in doing those very important tasks.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
those very important tasks. The public trust in statutory inquiries is already fragile. It's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
weakened by concerns about. Independence. Delay and failure to act on recommendations. Take the G inquiry, for example. It took seven years, it reported in October 2022, but only a tiny percentage of the recommendations have so far been implemented. This inquiry must be led by victims and survivors. Their led by victims and survivors. Their involvement is essential to its integrity and to uncovering the integrity and to uncovering the truth. The inquiry must go where the truth.
The inquiry must go where the evidence takes it and if there is any suggestion that there was racial and religious dimensions of abuse and religious dimensions of abuse and these are found to be true, then they must not be minimised. So can I they must not be minimised. So can I ask the Minister if he can give an unequivocal assurance that these issues will be addressed directly, and say what steps will be taken to ensure that this inquiry's ensure that this inquiry's recommendation, unlike so many before, are fully implemented? before, are fully implemented? Yeah, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness.
Can I just give her and refer it to the statement that the Home Secretary made in response to the issues that arose out of the Urgent Question in the House of Commons yesterday? And the Home Secretary has said today that the inquiry will explicitly examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders, as well as, obviously, if there are offenders who have been in grooming gangs, which are not from a particular ethnic minority, then that is also important that their examination of those issues is paramount.
She will know that we've set a time limit on the inquiry. We want that inquiry to report speedily because the important thing is to get recommendations. And I'm very clear, as the minister responsible for inquiries in the Home Office, that we need to get an inquiry result, get the recommendations out and very importantly, see them through as a matter of some urgency.
16:02
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
The noble Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister says that you're in the late stages. If the reports. Are to be believed. Then. The two.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Then. The two. Preferred candidates have. Walked away from the inquiry. So it means that you may actually have some time to go yet. And it is a position that I understand only too well being in such an inquiry well being in such an inquiry without a Chair or a timeline. The thing that we did actually, was to go back to the beginning and to go back to victims and survivors to really understand what their concerns were, and that was the only way that we could move forward.
way that we could move forward. Would the noble Lord, the minister say whether the government will perhaps look again at how it is engaging with victims and survivors, given the fact that there are a lot of them coming out to say that of them coming out to say that they've lost trust in the process, and it's very difficult in those circumstances to just say business as usual.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister says that you're in the late stages. If the reports. Are to be believed. Then. The two.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Then. The two. Preferred candidates have. Walked away from the inquiry. So it means that you may actually have some time to go yet. And it is a position that I understand only too well being in such an inquiry well being in such an inquiry without a Chair or a timeline. The thing that we did actually, was to go back to the beginning and to go back to victims and survivors to really understand what their concerns were, and that was the only way that we could move forward.
way that we could move forward. Would the noble Lord, the minister say whether the government will perhaps look again at how it is engaging with victims and survivors, given the fact that there are a lot of them coming out to say that of them coming out to say that they've lost trust in the process, and it's very difficult in those circumstances to just say business as usual.
16:03
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. I think it's a very fair point that the noble Baroness makes the that the noble Baroness makes the confidence of victim survivors is central to the effectiveness, the quality and also the outputs of this inquiry. As I mentioned in response to the early question from her noble friend from the front bench, the government has engaged n WG as a charity, which is a very respectable charity to engage with victims and survivors on behalf of the government and to give a sounding board to the issues that were involved in.
I regret the fact that people have walked away from that process, but there are many others involved in that process, and I want to ensure that they reflect very strongly, both on the appointment of the Chair, on the terms of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reference, but also ultimately on the recommendations of that inquiry, which is the most important aspect of this business. I, I will.
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. I think it's a very fair point that the noble Baroness makes the that the noble Baroness makes the confidence of victim survivors is central to the effectiveness, the quality and also the outputs of this inquiry. As I mentioned in response to the early question from her noble friend from the front bench, the government has engaged n WG as a charity, which is a very respectable charity to engage with victims and survivors on behalf of the government and to give a sounding board to the issues that were involved in.
I regret the fact that people have walked away from that process, but there are many others involved in that process, and I want to ensure that they reflect very strongly, both on the appointment of the Chair, on the terms of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reference, but also ultimately on the recommendations of that inquiry, which is the most important aspect of this business. I, I will.
16:04
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I, I will. By the victims, what the survivors. Actually resigned was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that there was very. Different. Accounts from the. for Minister safeguarding. And those survivors. And.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And. safeguarding. Implied. That anyone who was saying different was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
different was. Using misinformation, effectively accusing those survivors of lying. In fact, there was a very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In fact, there was a very different account from the Home. Office minister, from the. Home. Secretary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary. From the Minister. For safeguarding. I think we can safely say. That this is not being handled say. That this is not being handled well. It's not like other inquiries and that the Minister might want to reassure us that the absolute watertight terms of reference around rape, grooming gangs, that's not frightened of saying that they were predominantly Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs, that those things will be faced head on because at the moment I don't think there's enough reassurance that that's happening, the Home Secretary reassured me.
I'm not sure the minister or indeed the not sure the minister or indeed the Minister for safeguarding did well.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I, I will. By the victims, what the survivors. Actually resigned was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that there was very. Different. Accounts from the. for Minister safeguarding. And those survivors. And.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And. safeguarding. Implied. That anyone who was saying different was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
different was. Using misinformation, effectively accusing those survivors of lying. In fact, there was a very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In fact, there was a very different account from the Home. Office minister, from the. Home. Secretary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secretary. From the Minister. For safeguarding. I think we can safely say. That this is not being handled say. That this is not being handled well. It's not like other inquiries and that the Minister might want to reassure us that the absolute watertight terms of reference around rape, grooming gangs, that's not frightened of saying that they were predominantly Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs, that those things will be faced head on because at the moment I don't think there's enough reassurance that that's happening, the Home Secretary reassured me.
I'm not sure the minister or indeed the not sure the minister or indeed the Minister for safeguarding did well.
16:05
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
Let me defend, first of all, the Minister for safeguarding. I nobody else in the House of Commons who's committed so much time, so much energy and so much passion to ensuring that these issues are addressed and in terms of safeguarding of women and girls and violence against women and girls. She is paramount in her ambition to secure some outcomes on that issue. As I've said to other noble lords and ladies in the House today, the Home Secretary has been very clear that the terms of reference will be determined that the focus will be on grooming gangs.
The focus will be on ethnicity and background, but that also means that we need to look at grooming gangs in the round. But there is a real focus on the ethnicity and background of a number of grooming gangs which have operated, which of course, distress that has led to this inquiry in the that has led to this inquiry in the first place.
The focus will be on ethnicity and background, but that also means that we need to look at grooming gangs in the round. But there is a real focus on the ethnicity and background of a number of grooming gangs which have operated, which of course, distress that has led to this inquiry in the that has led to this inquiry in the first place.
16:06
Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Pickles (Conservative)
Sir Francis Casey.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And oh, I'm to pick part. OK. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That's very kind. Look at Rochdale. And I know the kind of pressure that's placed on a politician when you take that kind of decision. So I'm much more sympathetic to the government. I do not think we should be political. We are going to uncover some very unpleasant truths about how the unpleasant truths about how the establishment in this country looked the other way. So could I ask the the other way. So could I ask the Minister to give lots of consideration to Baroness Casey's consideration to Baroness Casey's recommendation that this should not be a judge led? I think the nature be a judge led? I think the nature of a public inquiry led by led by a judge will be absolutely over judge will be absolutely over daunting.
And I think we need to get the confidence of the victims. We get the confidence of the community.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And oh, I'm to pick part. OK. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That's very kind. Look at Rochdale. And I know the kind of pressure that's placed on a politician when you take that kind of decision. So I'm much more sympathetic to the government. I do not think we should be political. We are going to uncover some very unpleasant truths about how the unpleasant truths about how the establishment in this country looked the other way. So could I ask the the other way. So could I ask the Minister to give lots of consideration to Baroness Casey's consideration to Baroness Casey's recommendation that this should not be a judge led? I think the nature be a judge led? I think the nature of a public inquiry led by led by a judge will be absolutely over judge will be absolutely over daunting.
And I think we need to get the confidence of the victims. We get the confidence of the community.
16:07
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
get the confidence of the community. country. I'm grateful for the nobles Lord support in this area that he's right to draw attention to the fact that the noble Baroness Casey, in her recommendations, said that we should try and move away from the judge led model for this inquiry. That's what we've been trying to do and the very difficult issues that we've been doing in discussing with victims and survivors of who should be the Chair and how the Chair should be appointed, are one of the reasons why there has been the delay today, for the very reasons the noble Baroness has mentioned.
As I've said before, the Covid inquiry and the infected blood inquiry took seven months to get to a Chair where and around three and a half to four months since the inquiry was announced. I hope that we can make the appointment very shortly, along the lines that the noble Lord has indeed mentioned today.
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
get the confidence of the community. country. I'm grateful for the nobles Lord support in this area that he's right to draw attention to the fact that the noble Baroness Casey, in her recommendations, said that we should try and move away from the judge led model for this inquiry. That's what we've been trying to do and the very difficult issues that we've been doing in discussing with victims and survivors of who should be the Chair and how the Chair should be appointed, are one of the reasons why there has been the delay today, for the very reasons the noble Baroness has mentioned.
As I've said before, the Covid inquiry and the infected blood inquiry took seven months to get to a Chair where and around three and a half to four months since the inquiry was announced. I hope that we can make the appointment very shortly, along the lines that the noble Lord has indeed mentioned today.
16:07
The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
my Lords the Church.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Face up to our own. Very significant. Failures in the areas of safeguarding of children.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
safeguarding of children. And vulnerable adults. We were far too. Slow to realise the devastating
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Slow to realise the devastating impact. Of safeguarding when. It goes wrong. And we are even.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And we are even. Now struggling to put in place. Appropriate ways of ensuring accountability and of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
accountability and of. Being led by survivors. I wonder, therefore, if. The. Noble Lord. The Minister, can tell me.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What the government are doing to support all. Faith. Communities in addressing. Safeguarding, to go beyond simply
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Safeguarding, to go beyond simply the requirements of the Charity. Commission. And to show. That no.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Face up to our own. Very significant. Failures in the areas of safeguarding of children.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
safeguarding of children. And vulnerable adults. We were far too. Slow to realise the devastating
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Slow to realise the devastating impact. Of safeguarding when. It goes wrong. And we are even.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And we are even. Now struggling to put in place. Appropriate ways of ensuring accountability and of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
accountability and of. Being led by survivors. I wonder, therefore, if. The. Noble Lord. The Minister, can tell me.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What the government are doing to support all. Faith. Communities in addressing. Safeguarding, to go beyond simply
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Safeguarding, to go beyond simply the requirements of the Charity. Commission. And to show. That no.
16:08
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Group is above the law when it comes to safeguarding. People. Well. No group is above the law and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No group is above the law and this inquiry has been established for the purposes of examining the challenges that arose in certain communities with regard to child sexual abuse and grooming gangs. But I hope that the Right Reverend Prelate will recognise that, for example, in the Crime and Policing Bill that we had for Second Reading last Thursday, there are significant measures in there to improve safeguarding, measures, to improve reporting measures to meet the outcome of the Alexis J.
Report to government to ensure that we put in place a range of measures to protect victims from wherever they come, either from a faith community or indeed for Nan. And I hope that the Right Reverend Pallett can work with the government during the passage of that bill to give early implementation to those measures to provide strong safeguarding measures to protect children and to ensure we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
don't have future victims of this terrible, terrible incidents. One want, I'm afraid the time
**** Possible New Speaker ****
One want, I'm afraid the time allowed for this question has now elapsed. Shall we take a moment or
Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Group is above the law when it comes to safeguarding. People. Well. No group is above the law and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No group is above the law and this inquiry has been established for the purposes of examining the challenges that arose in certain communities with regard to child sexual abuse and grooming gangs. But I hope that the Right Reverend Prelate will recognise that, for example, in the Crime and Policing Bill that we had for Second Reading last Thursday, there are significant measures in there to improve safeguarding, measures, to improve reporting measures to meet the outcome of the Alexis J.
Report to government to ensure that we put in place a range of measures to protect victims from wherever they come, either from a faith community or indeed for Nan. And I hope that the Right Reverend Pallett can work with the government during the passage of that bill to give early implementation to those measures to provide strong safeguarding measures to protect children and to ensure we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
don't have future victims of this terrible, terrible incidents. One want, I'm afraid the time
**** Possible New Speaker ****
One want, I'm afraid the time allowed for this question has now elapsed. Shall we take a moment or
16:10
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 Lords, I beg to move the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
report. There will be no further considered on report. Of that considered on report. Of that opinion, say 'content'. If you're not content to the content public. I not content to the content public. I understand that we are at clause 51, amendment 62. Baroness Coffey.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
report. There will be no further considered on report. Of that considered on report. Of that opinion, say 'content'. If you're not content to the content public. I not content to the content public. I understand that we are at clause 51, amendment 62. Baroness Coffey.
16:11
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 62. Baroness Coffey. my Lords, I have two amendments in this group, but I speak to move in this group, but I speak to move amendment 62 a we are at the stage now where we are considering the government's significant changes are basically removing decision making from councillors on a huge scale, which gives me cause for concern. But I've decided to highlight in particular just a couple of areas. One of these, an 87 F, is where I might actually start.
And it comes to the nub of the issue. The government seems to be concerned and is proposing things like part three of this bill, councillors not making decisions anymore. That being handed over to officials, obviously not locally elected, and 87 F would. Require the reporting basically of planning permission that has been granted but not actually commenced. This is about making sure we've already got plenty of homes that have planning approval right around the country. Never mind the 700,000 homes that are currently sitting empty.
And I don't mean those necessarily the second homes I'm talking about. Other homes just sat there doing nothing. So it is important to me in thinking of communities around the country who have been given huge housing targets, again, imposed when we've seen actually the worst situation is in London, where hardly any homes are being built at all, sadly. And but instead we're seeing this rather Stalinist approach candidly in how we do this. So 87 is intended to encourage the government to make sure that at least we have some transparency around the country on what is happening with all those homes that are being granted permission to developers, but not being used 62 way in particular is considering what's happening where officials are talking about those sorts of planning applications that do not fit in the boundaries of the plan.
Now, I appreciate one of the things that we've been told about at various stages of this bill is that, of course, the real democratic process is in the creation of the plan in the first place. My experience of various places I've lived in in this country is that very rarely do communities actually seem to get involved. Councillors do, of course, but there's a lot of consultation until there's a particular development in their area. But nevertheless, even if it is going to be the case that the focus is now put on the consideration of where housing can happen with hopefully little, then further argument once that's done, and that offices should not be allowed to then make approvals for planning applications that sit outside the plan.
And indeed, the second issue is something they're very I've seen in particular in the Felixstowe area where area has been set aside for 2000 new homes on the edge of Felixstowe. But already we're starting to see a offices suggesting that the housing density being put forward for proposals and that they're recommending and in line with other policies, means that actually, if the same was applied to every single planning application, instead of the land that has been set aside, which is already substantial, with a housing density of about 150 per acre or hectare, I apologise, but nevertheless the implication would be that three times the amount of land would be needed.
Now that is huge extension of what communities who have been encouraged to get involved in plans think that they're getting when they've signed up to this. And that is why I believe that if councillors want to go beyond the local plan or the boundaries set out in the Local plan, if they want to change the density, then they should be the ones making that decision, not officers. So I'm conscious at this stage. We haven't seen any draft regulations from the government and what they're proposing to bring forward, and it would be helpful.
But my intention today is to press again to make sure that as and when the regulations come forward, because of course, we don't have an opportunity to amend regulations that this area must be covered in that regard in terms of considering the amendments tabled by my Noble friends Lord Lansley, I fully endorse amendment 63. Again, it makes a lot of sense that this House and the other House has at least a consideration of the proposals that are going to be put forward that will determine the sorts of issues I've just mentioned.
And indeed, I also support amendments 74 in the name of my noble friends on the front bench. Again, this seems quite straightforward that if there are valid planning reasons why something should be turned down, that at least the elected councillors should get to say that. So this is, I think, a huge change that's coming up, and we need to make sure that there are safeguards for communities that when they vote for their local councils or in the future, vote for their mayor, that they have some assurance that they will actually have some powers, rather than this being dictated from Whitehall, which has not always proved the best way to achieve housing in the past.
With
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, I beg to move. Amendment to pause clause 51, page 67, line 29 at the end and insert the words as printed on the partial list.
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 62. Baroness Coffey. my Lords, I have two amendments in this group, but I speak to move in this group, but I speak to move amendment 62 a we are at the stage now where we are considering the government's significant changes are basically removing decision making from councillors on a huge scale, which gives me cause for concern. But I've decided to highlight in particular just a couple of areas. One of these, an 87 F, is where I might actually start.
And it comes to the nub of the issue. The government seems to be concerned and is proposing things like part three of this bill, councillors not making decisions anymore. That being handed over to officials, obviously not locally elected, and 87 F would. Require the reporting basically of planning permission that has been granted but not actually commenced. This is about making sure we've already got plenty of homes that have planning approval right around the country. Never mind the 700,000 homes that are currently sitting empty.
And I don't mean those necessarily the second homes I'm talking about. Other homes just sat there doing nothing. So it is important to me in thinking of communities around the country who have been given huge housing targets, again, imposed when we've seen actually the worst situation is in London, where hardly any homes are being built at all, sadly. And but instead we're seeing this rather Stalinist approach candidly in how we do this. So 87 is intended to encourage the government to make sure that at least we have some transparency around the country on what is happening with all those homes that are being granted permission to developers, but not being used 62 way in particular is considering what's happening where officials are talking about those sorts of planning applications that do not fit in the boundaries of the plan.
Now, I appreciate one of the things that we've been told about at various stages of this bill is that, of course, the real democratic process is in the creation of the plan in the first place. My experience of various places I've lived in in this country is that very rarely do communities actually seem to get involved. Councillors do, of course, but there's a lot of consultation until there's a particular development in their area. But nevertheless, even if it is going to be the case that the focus is now put on the consideration of where housing can happen with hopefully little, then further argument once that's done, and that offices should not be allowed to then make approvals for planning applications that sit outside the plan.
And indeed, the second issue is something they're very I've seen in particular in the Felixstowe area where area has been set aside for 2000 new homes on the edge of Felixstowe. But already we're starting to see a offices suggesting that the housing density being put forward for proposals and that they're recommending and in line with other policies, means that actually, if the same was applied to every single planning application, instead of the land that has been set aside, which is already substantial, with a housing density of about 150 per acre or hectare, I apologise, but nevertheless the implication would be that three times the amount of land would be needed.
Now that is huge extension of what communities who have been encouraged to get involved in plans think that they're getting when they've signed up to this. And that is why I believe that if councillors want to go beyond the local plan or the boundaries set out in the Local plan, if they want to change the density, then they should be the ones making that decision, not officers. So I'm conscious at this stage. We haven't seen any draft regulations from the government and what they're proposing to bring forward, and it would be helpful.
But my intention today is to press again to make sure that as and when the regulations come forward, because of course, we don't have an opportunity to amend regulations that this area must be covered in that regard in terms of considering the amendments tabled by my Noble friends Lord Lansley, I fully endorse amendment 63. Again, it makes a lot of sense that this House and the other House has at least a consideration of the proposals that are going to be put forward that will determine the sorts of issues I've just mentioned.
And indeed, I also support amendments 74 in the name of my noble friends on the front bench. Again, this seems quite straightforward that if there are valid planning reasons why something should be turned down, that at least the elected councillors should get to say that. So this is, I think, a huge change that's coming up, and we need to make sure that there are safeguards for communities that when they vote for their local councils or in the future, vote for their mayor, that they have some assurance that they will actually have some powers, rather than this being dictated from Whitehall, which has not always proved the best way to achieve housing in the past.
With
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, I beg to move. Amendment to pause clause 51, page 67, line 29 at the end and insert the words as printed on the partial list.
16:16
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
partial list. I can find my remarks. If I may, to the amendment 63, in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I may, to the amendment 63, in my name. Noble Lords will recall that the committee stage. We had quite a substantial discussion. quite a substantial discussion. About the national scheme of delegation, about the principles of the extent to which decisions should be automatically delegated to planning officers as compared to going to committee. I don't really want to dwell on all that, other than to say we are continuing to wait, in my case, with optimism about a national scheme of delegation that it might assist in the delivery of our planning and housing targets, in my view.
And I'll just reiterate it, I think because ministers presumably are still considering how to proceed with the scheme. In my view, it was a mistake that the government's proposal for the scheme for consultation didn't follow through on the on the on the original plan, which would have meant that where decisions could be made wholly in accordance with the existing local plan, then they should be delegated to planning officers. Since the Planning Committee and the democratic input of my noble frame, Baroness Coffey just said the Democratic input is and should be primarily in establishing the local plan, and then we should be guided by that rather than revisiting every decision under the Local Plan through the planning committee.
The second thing I would say is we can continue to wait on the government consulting on national development management policies. I know it's the government's intention to do so, but again, it seems to me once we have national development management policies, by their nature, if they include policies which would determine how an application for permission should be treated. So, for example, in relation to planning applications in green and grey belt land, that in my view those should necessarily go to planning officers because the planning committee would have no discretion not to make a decision in line with the national development management policies.
So I think there is, I hope I simply say that in order to reiterate those points I feel strongly about, but also because I think it illustrates that we are when the when the scheme is first brought in, it will make substantial decisions about the framework within which the delegation of planning decisions is to be made. When we debated this at committee previously, it was on my amendment, which would have meant such regulations were always to be by an affirmative resolution.
I, I completely understand the Minister's response that there may be quite detailed aspects of these regulations, and indeed, as a consequence, there may be regular iterations there almost every time. Probably there is a change in the guidance, particularly a national planning policy framework. And we tend to have those as a little Christmas present just before Christmas every year. But when they come, we're probably going to get regulations on a new regulations on a, on a frequent basis. And they may be quite detailed.
But the first regulations, they set up, the framework, they set up the principles and the framework for how this scheme of delegation will work in the longer term. And I think it really isn't acceptable for that to be on a negative resolution. I think this House should have the opportunity to see and to approve. And my Noble friend says, to debate the framework for the national scheme of delegation the first time those regulations are made. And that is the purpose of amendment 63 to provide for the first time on an affirmative basis.
Subsequently, on a negative basis. And if I may say, when the time comes, I hope to have the opportunity to move that amendment. And if it secures support in this debate necessary, I may well look to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Test the opinion of the House. Lords. Well, these penalties. Liberal.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Liberal. Democrat benches are. Firm and constant supporters of the right of locally elected the right of locally elected councillors to make decisions in their area. Based on clear. National policies and the proposals in the Bill for a national diktat of Bill for a national diktat of delegation is the backdrop to this group of amendments. Now the group of amendments. Now the government is ostensibly in favour of devolution of decision making, however. There is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
however. There is. A tendency within. This bill to centralise certainly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This bill to centralise certainly decisions on planning by making it virtually impossible for local virtually impossible for local decisions to reflect local need and nuance. So amendment 62, a table by the noble Baroness Coffey is interesting, but could be problematic. But actually it was less problematic when I heard the less problematic when I heard the noble Baroness explanation of the noble Baroness explanation of the first part of her, of her amendment. Well, there are occasions during the life of a plan when unforeseen events arise, which means the plan, the local plan is not sacrosanct.
On the whole, I think it ought to be, otherwise it will be nibbled away during the during its lifetime,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
through precedent. I have some. Sympathy with the second part of the noble Baroness coffee's amendment. Too often, housing sites are assessed as being able to are assessed as being able to accommodate a large number of units, and along comes the developer who has his eyes on the profit line and has his eyes on the profit line and applies for a different balance of houses where larger and more expensive and more profitable are to be built. And the consequence, of course, is a balance that we need is course, is a balance that we need is somewhere in between.
But the result of that approach of allowing of that approach of allowing developers to determine the density developers to determine the density of a site is that more land then has to be allocated for development. I to be allocated for development. I will give one example from my own area, where a housing site was area, where a housing site was allocated in the Local Plan as under under the National rules for 402 under the National rules for 402 homes and the.
What is currently homes and the. What is currently being built is just over 200. being built is just over 200. Because of the need apparently for five bed exact homes, when actually the local assessment of housing need shows that what is required are start up homes and smaller homes with 2 or 3 bed units. So I have a lot of sympathy with the that part of Baroness Poppy's amendment. Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord Lansley is right to put safeguards in place in the rush to take the local out of local democracy.
The amendment would, as I say, as the noble Lord has explained this to ensure that affirmative resolution is required for the initial changes to the national scheme of delegation, and that is got to be right, because it will set
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the tone for the future of what is accepted. As being.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As being. Part of a national scheme of delegation and what is OK for local
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
partial list. I can find my remarks. If I may, to the amendment 63, in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I may, to the amendment 63, in my name. Noble Lords will recall that the committee stage. We had quite a substantial discussion. quite a substantial discussion. About the national scheme of delegation, about the principles of the extent to which decisions should be automatically delegated to planning officers as compared to going to committee. I don't really want to dwell on all that, other than to say we are continuing to wait, in my case, with optimism about a national scheme of delegation that it might assist in the delivery of our planning and housing targets, in my view.
And I'll just reiterate it, I think because ministers presumably are still considering how to proceed with the scheme. In my view, it was a mistake that the government's proposal for the scheme for consultation didn't follow through on the on the on the original plan, which would have meant that where decisions could be made wholly in accordance with the existing local plan, then they should be delegated to planning officers. Since the Planning Committee and the democratic input of my noble frame, Baroness Coffey just said the Democratic input is and should be primarily in establishing the local plan, and then we should be guided by that rather than revisiting every decision under the Local Plan through the planning committee.
The second thing I would say is we can continue to wait on the government consulting on national development management policies. I know it's the government's intention to do so, but again, it seems to me once we have national development management policies, by their nature, if they include policies which would determine how an application for permission should be treated. So, for example, in relation to planning applications in green and grey belt land, that in my view those should necessarily go to planning officers because the planning committee would have no discretion not to make a decision in line with the national development management policies.
So I think there is, I hope I simply say that in order to reiterate those points I feel strongly about, but also because I think it illustrates that we are when the when the scheme is first brought in, it will make substantial decisions about the framework within which the delegation of planning decisions is to be made. When we debated this at committee previously, it was on my amendment, which would have meant such regulations were always to be by an affirmative resolution.
I, I completely understand the Minister's response that there may be quite detailed aspects of these regulations, and indeed, as a consequence, there may be regular iterations there almost every time. Probably there is a change in the guidance, particularly a national planning policy framework. And we tend to have those as a little Christmas present just before Christmas every year. But when they come, we're probably going to get regulations on a new regulations on a, on a frequent basis. And they may be quite detailed.
But the first regulations, they set up, the framework, they set up the principles and the framework for how this scheme of delegation will work in the longer term. And I think it really isn't acceptable for that to be on a negative resolution. I think this House should have the opportunity to see and to approve. And my Noble friend says, to debate the framework for the national scheme of delegation the first time those regulations are made. And that is the purpose of amendment 63 to provide for the first time on an affirmative basis.
Subsequently, on a negative basis. And if I may say, when the time comes, I hope to have the opportunity to move that amendment. And if it secures support in this debate necessary, I may well look to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Test the opinion of the House. Lords. Well, these penalties. Liberal.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Liberal. Democrat benches are. Firm and constant supporters of the right of locally elected the right of locally elected councillors to make decisions in their area. Based on clear. National policies and the proposals in the Bill for a national diktat of Bill for a national diktat of delegation is the backdrop to this group of amendments. Now the group of amendments. Now the government is ostensibly in favour of devolution of decision making, however. There is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
however. There is. A tendency within. This bill to centralise certainly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This bill to centralise certainly decisions on planning by making it virtually impossible for local virtually impossible for local decisions to reflect local need and nuance. So amendment 62, a table by the noble Baroness Coffey is interesting, but could be problematic. But actually it was less problematic when I heard the less problematic when I heard the noble Baroness explanation of the noble Baroness explanation of the first part of her, of her amendment. Well, there are occasions during the life of a plan when unforeseen events arise, which means the plan, the local plan is not sacrosanct.
On the whole, I think it ought to be, otherwise it will be nibbled away during the during its lifetime,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
through precedent. I have some. Sympathy with the second part of the noble Baroness coffee's amendment. Too often, housing sites are assessed as being able to are assessed as being able to accommodate a large number of units, and along comes the developer who has his eyes on the profit line and has his eyes on the profit line and applies for a different balance of houses where larger and more expensive and more profitable are to be built. And the consequence, of course, is a balance that we need is course, is a balance that we need is somewhere in between.
But the result of that approach of allowing of that approach of allowing developers to determine the density developers to determine the density of a site is that more land then has to be allocated for development. I to be allocated for development. I will give one example from my own area, where a housing site was area, where a housing site was allocated in the Local Plan as under under the National rules for 402 under the National rules for 402 homes and the.
What is currently homes and the. What is currently being built is just over 200. being built is just over 200. Because of the need apparently for five bed exact homes, when actually the local assessment of housing need shows that what is required are start up homes and smaller homes with 2 or 3 bed units. So I have a lot of sympathy with the that part of Baroness Poppy's amendment. Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord Lansley is right to put safeguards in place in the rush to take the local out of local democracy.
The amendment would, as I say, as the noble Lord has explained this to ensure that affirmative resolution is required for the initial changes to the national scheme of delegation, and that is got to be right, because it will set
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the tone for the future of what is accepted. As being.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As being. Part of a national scheme of delegation and what is OK for local
16:24
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
delegation and what is OK for local decision makers. That is fundamental. And the and the noble Lord language is right to raise it in this amendment. And if he wishes to take it to a vote, we on these benches will support him. Now, the noble Baroness Scott of Bybrook has noble Baroness Scott of Bybrook has not yet had the opportunity to move her amendment 76, and I hope he doesn't mind if I just comment on it. So we on these benches will it.
So we on these benches will support the noble Baroness Scott if she wishes to take it to a vote, she wishes to take it to a vote, because it is again another move towards empowering local decision towards empowering local decision makers with the right to take planning applications to committee, planning applications to committee, where a decision there's a volume of where a decision there's a volume of valid objections to. A application, and then to have the debate in a and then to have the debate in a public setting.
Amendment 87 F. The public setting. Amendment 87 F. The no balanced coffees is a sensible change to help understand where the real problems lie in the failure to real problems lie in the failure to build the houses the country needs. And as the noble Baroness. Hinted.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's not local planning committees or local planning authorities. Otherwise there would not be 1.2 million units with full not be 1.2 million units with full planning permission waiting for construction on those figures are construction on those figures are from the ONS, and I'm not going to quarrel with the ONS. So 1.2 million quarrel with the ONS. So 1.2 million units. If the government could get the housing developers to start the housing developers to start building those, we are well on the way to the 1.5 million that the way to the 1.5 million that the government reckons they need during the lifetime of this Parliament.
So the lifetime of this Parliament. So this is an important set of amendments, this group, because it amendments, this group, because it is about getting the balance between national need and local decision national need and local decision making, between a national view of making, between a national view of what is acceptable and local elected councillors being able to reflect councillors being able to reflect local need. Know conditions and local need. Know conditions and local requirements in their local and setting.
So I hope that that at least the Lord Langley will put his amendment to the vote, because it is fundamental to a democratic process to local decisions on planning.
So we on these benches will support the noble Baroness Scott if she wishes to take it to a vote, she wishes to take it to a vote, because it is again another move towards empowering local decision towards empowering local decision makers with the right to take planning applications to committee, planning applications to committee, where a decision there's a volume of where a decision there's a volume of valid objections to. A application, and then to have the debate in a and then to have the debate in a public setting.
Amendment 87 F. The public setting. Amendment 87 F. The no balanced coffees is a sensible change to help understand where the real problems lie in the failure to real problems lie in the failure to build the houses the country needs. And as the noble Baroness. Hinted.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's not local planning committees or local planning authorities. Otherwise there would not be 1.2 million units with full not be 1.2 million units with full planning permission waiting for construction on those figures are construction on those figures are from the ONS, and I'm not going to quarrel with the ONS. So 1.2 million quarrel with the ONS. So 1.2 million units. If the government could get the housing developers to start the housing developers to start building those, we are well on the way to the 1.5 million that the way to the 1.5 million that the government reckons they need during the lifetime of this Parliament.
So the lifetime of this Parliament. So this is an important set of amendments, this group, because it amendments, this group, because it is about getting the balance between national need and local decision national need and local decision making, between a national view of making, between a national view of what is acceptable and local elected councillors being able to reflect councillors being able to reflect local need. Know conditions and local need. Know conditions and local requirements in their local and setting.
So I hope that that at least the Lord Langley will put his amendment to the vote, because it is fundamental to a democratic process to local decisions on planning.
16:27
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
What amendment 76.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reminded noble Lords before, I've sat on the planning committee many times. I've appointed the committee as the leader of a council and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as the leader of a council and the chairman. And I know. It's. A. Very important. Quayside judicial position. And my Lords, planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And my Lords, planning. Exists to arbitrate between the public good and the private interest. And I use the word
**** Possible New Speaker ****
interest. And I use the word arbitrate purposely, because people. Who sit on. The planning committee have a difficult job. They've got to weigh up so much conflicting information. up so much conflicting information. And it's an adversarial system, because ultimately either the proposer wins or the objector wins. There's no sort of grave purpose in the middle. Now, much of this. Bill the middle. Now, much of this. Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are the blockers of committees are the blockers of development, and it's only with the ranks of officials that we can get ranks of officials that we can get things going.
And of course, is rubbish. And my evidence for that assertion is given by the Supreme assertion is given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom this morning by the Supreme Court this morning, rule that governments and quangos that had asserted that quangos that had asserted that Ramsar sites had an equivalence to European sites and thus had to have European sites and thus had to have a full environmental assessment that was wrong, and they overturned it on that narrow point. But what do we have? The officials, the Treasury solicitors, within an hour boasting how this bill is going to turn that around and re-employ and reinstall that unnecessary gold plating.
Gold plating that after four years, the Court of Appeal ruled, shouldn't have happened. So the government suggestion that ministers should, you know, use planning committees and instead form a national planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee amongst themselves. So to. Speak, in Marsham Street, is as fanciful as it is risible. It's a fanciful as it is risible. It's a recipe for hurry up and slow down. And as a and it's not as if fooling And as a and it's not as if fooling anybody that's going to speed up the development. And of course, the premise is that officialdom brings premise is that officialdom brings none of their own particular, either personal or institutional prejudices personal or institutional prejudices to bear.
No, each quango brings its own vetoes. We have Natural England with a track record of leaving no stone unturned in blocking or stone unturned in blocking or delaying development. We've got the railways who will ballast every proposal for a new footbridge with proposal for a new footbridge with £5 million worth of cost and preposterous delays. We've got the highway authorities that tie highway authorities that tie themselves in knots, overly overly precious technical guidance and misdirecting themselves that the private motor car is intrinsically bad when it isn't.
And that was bad when it isn't. And that was before we get to the other bad actors, which time does not permit me to list. I do not deny the importance of these quango representations, but the problem is they all claim a veto. And it's from they all claim a veto. And it's from this as we've got the £100 million bat bridge, you know, it's all that mitigating trade in greater crested mitigating trade in greater crested newts. Which are rare in Europe, but a common place in every pond in my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
electoral ward in Norfolk. It's the way that planning works. It only black. Balls, these.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Balls, these. Vetoes from one of the statutory consultees to stymie a proposal. And this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And this. Is why we need planning committees. But he plans committees committees. But he plans committees to cut through this nonsense. In my experience, the committees, and especially those ones appointed by myself, appointed by accountable myself, appointed by accountable councillors, do more to get Britain building that the faceless dead hand of the state, each of each member of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of the state, each of each member of which is watching each other's back in some. Sort. Of bureaucratic conspiracy to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of bureaucratic conspiracy to slow things down. We need elected people, local councillors who know their patch, who can see a their patch, who can see a self-serving veto or spurious objection from a quango. When we see one, we need people on the ground who know the importance of building homes, economies and places that in higher, enhanced lifestyles. And that's why my Noble friends
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that's why my Noble friends amendment is so welcome and so necessary. And this covered. With the other amendments in this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the other amendments in this bill that would fetter and restrict judicial review. And I note my Noble friend Lord banner isn't in his.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
friend Lord banner isn't in his. Place, but. It's his recommendations I'm referring to there. It's the right referring to there. It's the right thing to get to the nub of amendment 76 that the Chair of planning should be able to revisit an official terms, otherwise fatal objections to get it to committee so that the local champions can take all the evidence into account and listen carefully to objections. But to balance that public and private interest and to get Britain building, not pander to self-serving quangos who are only introduced, interested in pursuing their own else.
else.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reminded noble Lords before, I've sat on the planning committee many times. I've appointed the committee as the leader of a council and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as the leader of a council and the chairman. And I know. It's. A. Very important. Quayside judicial position. And my Lords, planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And my Lords, planning. Exists to arbitrate between the public good and the private interest. And I use the word
**** Possible New Speaker ****
interest. And I use the word arbitrate purposely, because people. Who sit on. The planning committee have a difficult job. They've got to weigh up so much conflicting information. up so much conflicting information. And it's an adversarial system, because ultimately either the proposer wins or the objector wins. There's no sort of grave purpose in the middle. Now, much of this. Bill the middle. Now, much of this. Bill is established under the false premise that local planning committees are the blockers of committees are the blockers of development, and it's only with the ranks of officials that we can get ranks of officials that we can get things going.
And of course, is rubbish. And my evidence for that assertion is given by the Supreme assertion is given by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom this morning by the Supreme Court this morning, rule that governments and quangos that had asserted that quangos that had asserted that Ramsar sites had an equivalence to European sites and thus had to have European sites and thus had to have a full environmental assessment that was wrong, and they overturned it on that narrow point. But what do we have? The officials, the Treasury solicitors, within an hour boasting how this bill is going to turn that around and re-employ and reinstall that unnecessary gold plating.
Gold plating that after four years, the Court of Appeal ruled, shouldn't have happened. So the government suggestion that ministers should, you know, use planning committees and instead form a national planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee amongst themselves. So to. Speak, in Marsham Street, is as fanciful as it is risible. It's a fanciful as it is risible. It's a recipe for hurry up and slow down. And as a and it's not as if fooling And as a and it's not as if fooling anybody that's going to speed up the development. And of course, the premise is that officialdom brings premise is that officialdom brings none of their own particular, either personal or institutional prejudices personal or institutional prejudices to bear.
No, each quango brings its own vetoes. We have Natural England with a track record of leaving no stone unturned in blocking or stone unturned in blocking or delaying development. We've got the railways who will ballast every proposal for a new footbridge with proposal for a new footbridge with £5 million worth of cost and preposterous delays. We've got the highway authorities that tie highway authorities that tie themselves in knots, overly overly precious technical guidance and misdirecting themselves that the private motor car is intrinsically bad when it isn't.
And that was bad when it isn't. And that was before we get to the other bad actors, which time does not permit me to list. I do not deny the importance of these quango representations, but the problem is they all claim a veto. And it's from they all claim a veto. And it's from this as we've got the £100 million bat bridge, you know, it's all that mitigating trade in greater crested mitigating trade in greater crested newts. Which are rare in Europe, but a common place in every pond in my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
electoral ward in Norfolk. It's the way that planning works. It only black. Balls, these.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Balls, these. Vetoes from one of the statutory consultees to stymie a proposal. And this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And this. Is why we need planning committees. But he plans committees committees. But he plans committees to cut through this nonsense. In my experience, the committees, and especially those ones appointed by myself, appointed by accountable myself, appointed by accountable councillors, do more to get Britain building that the faceless dead hand of the state, each of each member of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of the state, each of each member of which is watching each other's back in some. Sort. Of bureaucratic conspiracy to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of bureaucratic conspiracy to slow things down. We need elected people, local councillors who know their patch, who can see a their patch, who can see a self-serving veto or spurious objection from a quango. When we see one, we need people on the ground who know the importance of building homes, economies and places that in higher, enhanced lifestyles. And that's why my Noble friends
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that's why my Noble friends amendment is so welcome and so necessary. And this covered. With the other amendments in this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the other amendments in this bill that would fetter and restrict judicial review. And I note my Noble friend Lord banner isn't in his.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
friend Lord banner isn't in his. Place, but. It's his recommendations I'm referring to there. It's the right referring to there. It's the right thing to get to the nub of amendment 76 that the Chair of planning should be able to revisit an official terms, otherwise fatal objections to get it to committee so that the local champions can take all the evidence into account and listen carefully to objections. But to balance that public and private interest and to get Britain building, not pander to self-serving quangos who are only introduced, interested in pursuing their own else.
else.
16:32
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
Yeah. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House. Support for local democracy. Which I can. Only endorse. Amendment 63.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 63. Tabled by my Noble friend Lord Lansley, concerns the first set of Lansley, concerns the first set of regulations made under the proposed national scheme, which has drafted would determine how local planning would determine how local planning decisions are to be made in the future. My Noble Friend's amendment seeks to ensure that these initial regulations are subject to the stronger form of parliamentary scrutiny. The affirmative procedure. That requirement is important. The national scheme represents a major national scheme represents a major structural change in the planning system.
It alters fundamentally the balance between decisions taken by elected planning committees and those delegated to officers. Such a those delegated to officers. Such a shift in decision making authority carries significant implications for local accountability, democratic oversight, and public confidence in the planning system. Given the scale the planning system. Given the scale and significance of these reforms, it is only right that Parliament it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider and debate and explicitly approve the first set of regulations approve the first set of regulations before they take effect.
My noble friend's amendment, therefore, seeks not to delay progress, but to strengthen the legitimacy to ensure that this House and the other place have a proper role scrutinising the framework through which these changes will be implemented. In short, in affirmative resolution procedure would provide a vital check and balance and moment of genuine structural transition in the planning system, and I hope the government will look favourably upon my noble friends sensible and proportionate proposal. Next, my Lords, I turn to amendment 76, tabled in my name.
This amendment aims to ensure that the vital role of local democracy and the determination of planning application continues, while ensuring that spurious call ins are avoided by requiring both the Head of Planning and the Chair of the planning Committee to confirm that the objections are on valid planning grounds. Now. This reflects best practice in many authorities today. We believe in local democracy because we believe in local people. That means ensuring the right homes are built in the right places, with the consent and confidence of the communities they affect.
Committee chairs and planning officers. Our chief planning officers are well placed to judge when wider scrutiny is needed, retaining their discretion. In this way, insurance, transparency and trust without dismantling the efficiency of a national delegation scheme. I know Mr. May argue that this would undermine the purpose of national delegation by allowing too many applications to go to committee, but that simply is not the case. The amendment requires the agreement of both the professional planner and the elected Chair, and only where the objections rest on valid planning grounds.
That is a proportionate safeguard, not a free for all. This is about balance, maintaining efficiency in the system while giving communities confidence that genuine concerns will be heard and scrutinised. That is how we build trust in planning and how we deliver development that truly has local consent. Finally, I wish to briefly speak to amendments 62, eight and 87 F tabled by my Noble friend Baroness Coffey. Amendment 62 is in similar vein to my own that an officer should not determine application outside of an adopted local plan.
Amendment 87 F looks to the issue of the failure to build out, and I would like to ask the Minister why the government has not moved forward with the parts of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, which sought to address this. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House. Support for local democracy. Which I can. Only endorse. Amendment 63.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 63. Tabled by my Noble friend Lord Lansley, concerns the first set of Lansley, concerns the first set of regulations made under the proposed national scheme, which has drafted would determine how local planning would determine how local planning decisions are to be made in the future. My Noble Friend's amendment seeks to ensure that these initial regulations are subject to the stronger form of parliamentary scrutiny. The affirmative procedure. That requirement is important. The national scheme represents a major national scheme represents a major structural change in the planning system.
It alters fundamentally the balance between decisions taken by elected planning committees and those delegated to officers. Such a those delegated to officers. Such a shift in decision making authority carries significant implications for local accountability, democratic oversight, and public confidence in the planning system. Given the scale the planning system. Given the scale and significance of these reforms, it is only right that Parliament it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider and debate and explicitly approve the first set of regulations approve the first set of regulations before they take effect.
My noble friend's amendment, therefore, seeks not to delay progress, but to strengthen the legitimacy to ensure that this House and the other place have a proper role scrutinising the framework through which these changes will be implemented. In short, in affirmative resolution procedure would provide a vital check and balance and moment of genuine structural transition in the planning system, and I hope the government will look favourably upon my noble friends sensible and proportionate proposal. Next, my Lords, I turn to amendment 76, tabled in my name.
This amendment aims to ensure that the vital role of local democracy and the determination of planning application continues, while ensuring that spurious call ins are avoided by requiring both the Head of Planning and the Chair of the planning Committee to confirm that the objections are on valid planning grounds. Now. This reflects best practice in many authorities today. We believe in local democracy because we believe in local people. That means ensuring the right homes are built in the right places, with the consent and confidence of the communities they affect.
Committee chairs and planning officers. Our chief planning officers are well placed to judge when wider scrutiny is needed, retaining their discretion. In this way, insurance, transparency and trust without dismantling the efficiency of a national delegation scheme. I know Mr. May argue that this would undermine the purpose of national delegation by allowing too many applications to go to committee, but that simply is not the case. The amendment requires the agreement of both the professional planner and the elected Chair, and only where the objections rest on valid planning grounds.
That is a proportionate safeguard, not a free for all. This is about balance, maintaining efficiency in the system while giving communities confidence that genuine concerns will be heard and scrutinised. That is how we build trust in planning and how we deliver development that truly has local consent. Finally, I wish to briefly speak to amendments 62, eight and 87 F tabled by my Noble friend Baroness Coffey. Amendment 62 is in similar vein to my own that an officer should not determine application outside of an adopted local plan.
Amendment 87 F looks to the issue of the failure to build out, and I would like to ask the Minister why the government has not moved forward with the parts of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, which sought to address this. Thank you.
16:36
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Conservative)
A the my Noble friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Feet than I was. If I could just make a few comments on. Amendment 87
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make a few comments on. Amendment 87 F standing in my Noble friend Baroness Coffey. I served. For eight years on Medway Unitary Council's councillor. Some of that time was on planning and obviously had the benefit of representing a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
had the benefit of representing a constituency in Kent. At the other end. I'm very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Aware that whenever a substantial planning application. Is. Put to the local community, there is generally uproar. There is is generally uproar. There is generally a lot of concern, there may be a lot of consultation, a lot of money spent by the developer. of money spent by the developer. There's presentations to local public, to local councillors and all public, to local councillors and all of that that goes with it. It can be quite upsetting for local communities. And I have to say, in my experience, the Liberal Democrats my experience, the Liberal Democrats are very adept of exploiting that concern, usually for political advantage.
But having gone through advantage. But having gone through that process, we find that often a lot of these planning applications never actually get built out. At a time when we have a huge demand for housing. And then developers look again at somewhere a bit simpler, perhaps to develop out. And when perhaps to develop out. And when it's not for this place or for us to dictate the market, that is for obviously for developers. But I think the terms of what Baroness Coffey proposes is quite right.
So perhaps we would start to recognise some names amongst some of the bigger developers who seem to be going for applications and not building them out. We hear obliquely about hundreds of thousands of planning applications that have been approved that are yet to be built out. I don't know the exact figure. I don't think I ever have known the exact figure, but we're told it's many hundreds of thousands. I think it would be very, very refreshing if my Noble friend Baroness Coffey is a member was adopted to actually know the numbers regularly, and it would possibly give local people some pressure to knock on the doors of the developers and say, are you going to do this or are you not? And also, other authorities would be able to look at neighbouring authorities, authorities elsewhere in the country and see some similar names and starting to wonder what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they are doing. and. I looked. At these. Figures last year, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At these. Figures last year, the ones I found about 1.1. Million. Homes approved were not built on 1.1 million, which. Is quite. A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A. Few hundreds. Of thousands. Well, can I thank my noble friend for that clarification? As I say, I for that clarification? As I say, I was only guessing in the hundreds of thousands. I'm glad to have the clarity to this place. That is 1.1 clarity to this place. That is 1.1 million. There we have it. The potential for growth that we're looking for, a potential for supply looking for, a potential for supply of housing that needs within a local plan.
And yet we seem to keep having plan. And yet we seem to keep having calls for new land, new land, new development. I think the answer is in our lap. And it would be nice to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Feet than I was. If I could just make a few comments on. Amendment 87
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make a few comments on. Amendment 87 F standing in my Noble friend Baroness Coffey. I served. For eight years on Medway Unitary Council's councillor. Some of that time was on planning and obviously had the benefit of representing a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
had the benefit of representing a constituency in Kent. At the other end. I'm very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Aware that whenever a substantial planning application. Is. Put to the local community, there is generally uproar. There is is generally uproar. There is generally a lot of concern, there may be a lot of consultation, a lot of money spent by the developer. of money spent by the developer. There's presentations to local public, to local councillors and all public, to local councillors and all of that that goes with it. It can be quite upsetting for local communities. And I have to say, in my experience, the Liberal Democrats my experience, the Liberal Democrats are very adept of exploiting that concern, usually for political advantage.
But having gone through advantage. But having gone through that process, we find that often a lot of these planning applications never actually get built out. At a time when we have a huge demand for housing. And then developers look again at somewhere a bit simpler, perhaps to develop out. And when perhaps to develop out. And when it's not for this place or for us to dictate the market, that is for obviously for developers. But I think the terms of what Baroness Coffey proposes is quite right.
So perhaps we would start to recognise some names amongst some of the bigger developers who seem to be going for applications and not building them out. We hear obliquely about hundreds of thousands of planning applications that have been approved that are yet to be built out. I don't know the exact figure. I don't think I ever have known the exact figure, but we're told it's many hundreds of thousands. I think it would be very, very refreshing if my Noble friend Baroness Coffey is a member was adopted to actually know the numbers regularly, and it would possibly give local people some pressure to knock on the doors of the developers and say, are you going to do this or are you not? And also, other authorities would be able to look at neighbouring authorities, authorities elsewhere in the country and see some similar names and starting to wonder what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they are doing. and. I looked. At these. Figures last year, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At these. Figures last year, the ones I found about 1.1. Million. Homes approved were not built on 1.1 million, which. Is quite. A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A. Few hundreds. Of thousands. Well, can I thank my noble friend for that clarification? As I say, I for that clarification? As I say, I was only guessing in the hundreds of thousands. I'm glad to have the clarity to this place. That is 1.1 clarity to this place. That is 1.1 million. There we have it. The potential for growth that we're looking for, a potential for supply looking for, a potential for supply of housing that needs within a local plan.
And yet we seem to keep having plan. And yet we seem to keep having calls for new land, new land, new development. I think the answer is in our lap. And it would be nice to
16:39
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)
in our lap. And it would be nice to have this rather more transparent so that we could consider it more closely.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I Lords that was an interesting. Debate on these amendments, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Debate on these amendments, and I would say that believing in local people so means building the homes they need and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The infrastructure. To support those homes. And this build out problem hasn't occurred. build out problem hasn't occurred. Since July 2024. The build up problem's been there for a long problem's been there for a long time, and it's this bill that's trying to do something about that. I thank the noble Baroness Coffey for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
thank the noble Baroness Coffey for amendment 62 A, which would require applications for. Development not housing. Density lower than.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Density lower than. That specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I do appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. However, it's common for applications to be submitted for development that are not in development that are not in accordance with the Local Plan. That doesn't mean that all those applications are controversial, or that they require committee scrutiny To bring all such applications to committee would undermine the whole point of clause 51. And I would therefore ask the mobile Baroness to withdraw her.
And then then, turning withdraw her. And then then, turning to amendment 63 from the noble Lord Lansley, which seeks to make initial regulations relating to the national regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. As I mentioned at committee, it's common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the bill and hasn't raised any concerns with either this power or the proposed procedure.
I recognise the noble Lord has altered his amendment, so only applies to the first set of regulations, but I still don't believe that revised amendment is necessary. We've already consulted on our proposed approach. In May this year, the Secretary of State, under the bill's provisions will be required to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations and the subsequent changes to them. That means that the government will be conducting another consultation on these very regulations before they are brought into force. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals set out in the regulations to ensure they will work effectively in practice.
They're the practitioners after all, so I've been looking forward to hearing their comments. Turning to amendment 76, in the name of the noble Lord Jamieson, amendment 76 seeks to get the Chair of a planning committee. Also, I believe it was in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Scott, and moved by the noble Lord Jameson and the head of planning the discretion to allow any planning application to be determined by committee, where there are objections on valid planning grounds, noble Lords will recall that we debated an identical amendment at Lords committee, and I can confirm the government hasn't changed its position on this issue.
The intention of the amendment undermines the introduction of a national scheme of delegation. Valid planning objections are a frequent occurrence on planning applications. Anyone that's ever been on the council will know that only too well. This amendment would therefore mean that almost any application would be capable of being referred to committee. That is clearly something we wouldn't want to support. I would, however, just repeat once again that the intention behind the national scheme of delegation is not to undermine local democracy, it is simply to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities.
Turning to amendment 87 F, I would like to thank the noble Baroness Coffey for this amendment related to the build out of development. It is a very key issue. The amendment seeks to improve the transparency of build out data by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information on a quarterly basis about the number of planning consents granted where building has not started or completed in each local planning authority. Let me start by reaffirming to the Baroness, as I did during our earlier debate at committee stage, that I fully support the aim of improving build out of the rate and the rate of residential development.
The government remains committed to making sure that all planning permissions are translated into homes. And that said, I remain of the view, as I've previously set out, that we don't need this amendment to achieve that. When we debated build out a committee stage, I highlighted our publication of an important working paper in May, which I think sets out a more effective and a very comprehensive approach to speeding up build out. It includes greater transparency of build out rates, new powers for local planning authorities to decline, to determine applications from developers who have built out more slowly, greater emphasis on mixed use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty.
As a last resort. The working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to confirm cpos, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. And we've also set up our New Homes accelerator, which will help to unblock some of those stalled sites and find out what's causing the problem that's slowing down. Build out. We're now analysing the responses to that working paper and will be setting out our next steps in due course.
Once again, I want to reiterate that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the build out of residential development that we all want to see. Therefore, given our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
strategy to support faster build out, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. Before the minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before the minister. Sit down. Can I just ask for clarification? I did ask a specific question regarding the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act and the and Regeneration Act and the specific clauses in there that says a, a planning authority does not need to determine an application where the applicant has not built out elsewhere. And I think you were out elsewhere. And I think you were hinting in your paper that that's what you were doing. I did ask whether you will actually implement that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. We're still analysing the responses. We did consult indeed on that very issue. We're still that very issue. We're still analysing the responses to the working paper. As soon as we've done that, I will inform the House of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
outcome. We are. Not. Prepared to implement the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Levelling Up and Regeneration Act clauses as it stands now, despite having the power to do so. I can only repeat what I said
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can only repeat what I said that the powers that we consulted on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that the powers that we consulted on in the working paper. We want to look at the responses to that and then we will implement them. In.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I Lords that was an interesting. Debate on these amendments, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Debate on these amendments, and I would say that believing in local people so means building the homes they need and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The infrastructure. To support those homes. And this build out problem hasn't occurred. build out problem hasn't occurred. Since July 2024. The build up problem's been there for a long problem's been there for a long time, and it's this bill that's trying to do something about that. I thank the noble Baroness Coffey for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
thank the noble Baroness Coffey for amendment 62 A, which would require applications for. Development not housing. Density lower than.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Density lower than. That specified in the plan, to be determined by committee. I do appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. However, it's common for applications to be submitted for development that are not in development that are not in accordance with the Local Plan. That doesn't mean that all those applications are controversial, or that they require committee scrutiny To bring all such applications to committee would undermine the whole point of clause 51. And I would therefore ask the mobile Baroness to withdraw her.
And then then, turning withdraw her. And then then, turning to amendment 63 from the noble Lord Lansley, which seeks to make initial regulations relating to the national regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. As I mentioned at committee, it's common practice across planning legislation for regulations of a detailed and technical nature such as these to be subject to the negative procedure, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has published its report on the bill and hasn't raised any concerns with either this power or the proposed procedure.
I recognise the noble Lord has altered his amendment, so only applies to the first set of regulations, but I still don't believe that revised amendment is necessary. We've already consulted on our proposed approach. In May this year, the Secretary of State, under the bill's provisions will be required to consult appropriate persons before making the regulations and the subsequent changes to them. That means that the government will be conducting another consultation on these very regulations before they are brought into force. In practice, this means that key stakeholders, including local planning authorities, will be able to respond on the detailed proposals set out in the regulations to ensure they will work effectively in practice.
They're the practitioners after all, so I've been looking forward to hearing their comments. Turning to amendment 76, in the name of the noble Lord Jamieson, amendment 76 seeks to get the Chair of a planning committee. Also, I believe it was in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Scott, and moved by the noble Lord Jameson and the head of planning the discretion to allow any planning application to be determined by committee, where there are objections on valid planning grounds, noble Lords will recall that we debated an identical amendment at Lords committee, and I can confirm the government hasn't changed its position on this issue.
The intention of the amendment undermines the introduction of a national scheme of delegation. Valid planning objections are a frequent occurrence on planning applications. Anyone that's ever been on the council will know that only too well. This amendment would therefore mean that almost any application would be capable of being referred to committee. That is clearly something we wouldn't want to support. I would, however, just repeat once again that the intention behind the national scheme of delegation is not to undermine local democracy, it is simply to allow planning committees to operate more effectively in the interests of their communities.
Turning to amendment 87 F, I would like to thank the noble Baroness Coffey for this amendment related to the build out of development. It is a very key issue. The amendment seeks to improve the transparency of build out data by requiring the Secretary of State to publish information on a quarterly basis about the number of planning consents granted where building has not started or completed in each local planning authority. Let me start by reaffirming to the Baroness, as I did during our earlier debate at committee stage, that I fully support the aim of improving build out of the rate and the rate of residential development.
The government remains committed to making sure that all planning permissions are translated into homes. And that said, I remain of the view, as I've previously set out, that we don't need this amendment to achieve that. When we debated build out a committee stage, I highlighted our publication of an important working paper in May, which I think sets out a more effective and a very comprehensive approach to speeding up build out. It includes greater transparency of build out rates, new powers for local planning authorities to decline, to determine applications from developers who have built out more slowly, greater emphasis on mixed use tenures, as well as exploring a potential delayed homes penalty.
As a last resort. The working paper also emphasised that we want to make it easier for local authorities to confirm cpos, which will help unlock stalled sites and make land assembly easier when this is in the public interest. And we've also set up our New Homes accelerator, which will help to unblock some of those stalled sites and find out what's causing the problem that's slowing down. Build out. We're now analysing the responses to that working paper and will be setting out our next steps in due course.
Once again, I want to reiterate that the measures set out in the working paper will make a real difference to the build out of residential development that we all want to see. Therefore, given our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
strategy to support faster build out, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. Before the minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before the minister. Sit down. Can I just ask for clarification? I did ask a specific question regarding the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act and the and Regeneration Act and the specific clauses in there that says a, a planning authority does not need to determine an application where the applicant has not built out elsewhere. And I think you were out elsewhere. And I think you were hinting in your paper that that's what you were doing. I did ask whether you will actually implement that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. We're still analysing the responses. We did consult indeed on that very issue. We're still that very issue. We're still analysing the responses to the working paper. As soon as we've done that, I will inform the House of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
outcome. We are. Not. Prepared to implement the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Levelling Up and Regeneration Act clauses as it stands now, despite having the power to do so. I can only repeat what I said
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can only repeat what I said that the powers that we consulted on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that the powers that we consulted on in the working paper. We want to look at the responses to that and then we will implement them. In.
16:46
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In. my Lords, I thank the Minister and to all the noble Lords who've contributed in this group, which I contributed in this group, which I think is has been a useful further discussion. I would say candidly to the Minister, these are the sorts of things that the powers that I would hope for transparency, that if I had served as a minister in her department, I would have wanted to know so I could go after those developers and frankly, hold their feet to the fire and indeed enact what my Noble friend has just said from from Lura 2023.
However, with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, I beg leave to withdraw 62 A. Single Lordships plans that amendment 62 ab withdrawn amendment amendment 62 ab withdrawn amendment by leave withdrawn. That brings us to amendment 63. Lord Lansley. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
thank to move. To the point. The question is an amendment 63 be agreed to As many as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 63 be agreed to As many as are of that opinion say, content content, not content. No. Not voting. Very fine points. We have to decide this by our ballot. I have to decide this by our ballot. I will inform you when the division is will inform you when the division is open. Very efficient. Voting is now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just Just to Just to minister.
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In. my Lords, I thank the Minister and to all the noble Lords who've contributed in this group, which I contributed in this group, which I think is has been a useful further discussion. I would say candidly to the Minister, these are the sorts of things that the powers that I would hope for transparency, that if I had served as a minister in her department, I would have wanted to know so I could go after those developers and frankly, hold their feet to the fire and indeed enact what my Noble friend has just said from from Lura 2023.
However, with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, I beg leave to withdraw 62 A. Single Lordships plans that amendment 62 ab withdrawn amendment amendment 62 ab withdrawn amendment by leave withdrawn. That brings us to amendment 63. Lord Lansley. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
thank to move. To the point. The question is an amendment 63 be agreed to As many as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 63 be agreed to As many as are of that opinion say, content content, not content. No. Not voting. Very fine points. We have to decide this by our ballot. I have to decide this by our ballot. I will inform you when the division is will inform you when the division is open. Very efficient. Voting is now
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just Just to Just to minister.
16:47
Division: Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Amdt: 63
-
Division: Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Amdt: 63
Yes, Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Yes. Yes, yes. Yes. It's I, I, I I, I understand. I, I understand. I'm, I, I understand. I'm, I'm. I, I understand. I'm, I'm. Not. I, I understand. I'm, I'm. Not. You know, I think. know, I think. know, I think. Yes, yes. For now. OK. Yes, yes. For now. OK. It's Yes, yes. For now. OK. It's just Yes, yes. For now. OK.
It's just I really like. hard.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We would like. For. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. Order. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to that depending will say content quantity not content contents will go to the went by the contents will go to the went by the through and not contents to the left by the bar. Is Is not. You You want You want to. You want to.
Get You want to. Get that? You want to. Get that? I You want to. Get that? I want You want to. Get that? I want to You want to. Get that? I want to talk. With you. talk. With you. My My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question is at amendment 63 be agreed to? Yep. Yep. OK, Yep. OK, so. Yep. OK, so. Yep. OK, so. Thank Yep. OK, so. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question. The question. Was The question. Was it The question. Was it amendment The question. Was it amendment 63 be agreed to the reverted content be agreed to the reverted content 246 not content 169 the contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have it. Yeah. Yeah. My Lords. That brings us on to after clause
It's just I really like. hard.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We would like. For. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. Order. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to that depending will say content quantity not content contents will go to the went by the contents will go to the went by the through and not contents to the left by the bar. Is Is not. You You want You want to. You want to.
Get You want to. Get that? You want to. Get that? I You want to. Get that? I want You want to. Get that? I want to You want to. Get that? I want to talk. With you. talk. With you. My My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question is at amendment 63 be agreed to? Yep. Yep. OK, Yep. OK, so. Yep. OK, so. Yep. OK, so. Thank Yep. OK, so. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question. The question. Was The question. Was it The question. Was it amendment The question. Was it amendment 63 be agreed to the reverted content be agreed to the reverted content 246 not content 169 the contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have it. Yeah. Yeah. My Lords. That brings us on to after clause
16:58
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That brings us on to after clause 51, government amendment 64 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taylor of Stevenage. my Lords, I beg to move amendments G 64 and G 259 in my amendments G 64 and G 259 in my name, which seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning Act to address an anomaly in the Secretary of State's existing powers, allowing him to issue holding directions to local planning authorities. Currently, powers under the act allow the Secretary of State to make a provision in the development order, which allow him to issue a holding direction to a local planning authority, restricting it from granting planning permission.
Such holding directions are used to allow the Secretary of State to consider whether to use his powers to call in the application for his own consideration. Under powers. Under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act. This amendment addresses an anomaly, and it will enable the Secretary of State to issue a holding direction to prevent local planning authorities from refusing an application for planning permission. I should make it clear this does not significantly change the way that cooling currently operates.
The Secretary of State can already call in any application, provided the local planning authority has not issued a formal decision notice, it merely prevents the local planning authority from issuing a refusal, and allows the Secretary of State to consider whether to determine the application himself. It's a well-established part of the planning system that the Secretary of State can intervene in planning decisions. This has been in statute since the inception of the modern planning system. The written ministerial statement of October 2012 set out the government's existing policy on Colin.
Under this policy, the Secretary of State in general only considers the use of his cooling powers if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Even when an application is called in, it does not mean that planning permission will be granted. The Secretary of State is bound by the same duties as local planning authorities. My laws to conclude Government amendments 64 and 259A minor, but no less important amendments to enable the more effective use of the Secretary
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of State's Colin Powers. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 51. Insert the new clause as printed and as an amendment to amendment 64. I call amendment 65.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call amendment 65. Lord Lansley. my Lords, amendment 64 relates to
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That brings us on to after clause 51, government amendment 64 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taylor of Stevenage. my Lords, I beg to move amendments G 64 and G 259 in my amendments G 64 and G 259 in my name, which seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning Act to address an anomaly in the Secretary of State's existing powers, allowing him to issue holding directions to local planning authorities. Currently, powers under the act allow the Secretary of State to make a provision in the development order, which allow him to issue a holding direction to a local planning authority, restricting it from granting planning permission.
Such holding directions are used to allow the Secretary of State to consider whether to use his powers to call in the application for his own consideration. Under powers. Under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act. This amendment addresses an anomaly, and it will enable the Secretary of State to issue a holding direction to prevent local planning authorities from refusing an application for planning permission. I should make it clear this does not significantly change the way that cooling currently operates.
The Secretary of State can already call in any application, provided the local planning authority has not issued a formal decision notice, it merely prevents the local planning authority from issuing a refusal, and allows the Secretary of State to consider whether to determine the application himself. It's a well-established part of the planning system that the Secretary of State can intervene in planning decisions. This has been in statute since the inception of the modern planning system. The written ministerial statement of October 2012 set out the government's existing policy on Colin.
Under this policy, the Secretary of State in general only considers the use of his cooling powers if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Even when an application is called in, it does not mean that planning permission will be granted. The Secretary of State is bound by the same duties as local planning authorities. My laws to conclude Government amendments 64 and 259A minor, but no less important amendments to enable the more effective use of the Secretary
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of State's Colin Powers. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 51. Insert the new clause as printed and as an amendment to amendment 64. I call amendment 65.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call amendment 65. Lord Lansley. my Lords, amendment 64 relates to
17:00
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, amendment 64 relates to a subject which we did not discuss in committee. It's an amendment tabled only at the beginning of last week. I have to confess, when I looked at it, although the Minister said there was just an anomaly, as though it was some sort of gap, I found it quite difficult to work out what this gap was. If the if the under the existing powers, if the Secretary of State sees that a local authority is not intending to grant planning permission, but wishes that planning permission to be granted, the Secretary of State can issue a direction for that purpose.
If the if the Secretary of State sees that a local authority, local planning authority, is likely to refuse a planning application. Leaving aside the fact that the applicant might choose to appeal such a refusal, the Secretary of State could, if the Secretary sought to move quickly, he could make a direction for the purpose of granting planning permission or just simply call it in. Which would be the obvious thing I would have thought to have done.
The purpose of my amendment was just to test the use case ability, because what worries me is that on the face of it, the ostensible purpose here might be to give the Secretary of State much clearer power to issue a direction, to stop a local authority refusing planning permission for an application that is not in accordance with the development plan. Now, clearly, the Secretary State already has the power to grant planning permission not in accordance with the development plan that is in section 74, in a later subsection.
So the Secretary State can still do that thing. But it looks to me like what the what this actually adds is the ability to stop local authorities refusing permission in circumstances where an application is not in accordance with the development plan. I think we spent a lot of time, especially those of us who remember the debates on the levelling up and regeneration. Bill spent a lot of time emphasising time and again the importance of local authorities having up to date local plans, and that decisions should be made in accordance with those local plans.
So my amendment 65, as an amendment 64 was to add in to section 74 of the Town Country Planning Act specific provision that planning that the Secretary of State may issue directions, in effect, to grant planning permission or to refuse planning permission in accordance with the development plan, because that seems to me to be the best way of guaranteeing the democratic input to planning and indeed the delivery of planning happens in ways that are relatively predictable and successful from the point of view of local communities.
So I do commend amendment 65 as an alternative approach. But in the absence of amendment 65, it just seems to me that amendment 64 adds risk to the system rather than
**** Possible New Speaker ****
substantial benefit. Yeah. Exactly. Right. Oh, I beg to move. Amendment 65.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 65. There's an amendment to amendment 64. At amendment 65 at the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
64. At amendment 65 at the. End, insert the words. Printed. My notes. I've brought 87 A and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My notes. I've brought 87 A and 870 in this group. 870 is a bit of an outlier, but so I'll come to that later in my contribution. But in later in my contribution. But in essence, 87 A is actually supposed to be a bit of a helping hand to the to be a bit of a helping hand to the government in achieving the outcome that they are intending to do. that they are intending to do. Whereas the proposed amendment by the government, 64, really is a huge overreach.
And I should start by
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, amendment 64 relates to a subject which we did not discuss in committee. It's an amendment tabled only at the beginning of last week. I have to confess, when I looked at it, although the Minister said there was just an anomaly, as though it was some sort of gap, I found it quite difficult to work out what this gap was. If the if the under the existing powers, if the Secretary of State sees that a local authority is not intending to grant planning permission, but wishes that planning permission to be granted, the Secretary of State can issue a direction for that purpose.
If the if the Secretary of State sees that a local authority, local planning authority, is likely to refuse a planning application. Leaving aside the fact that the applicant might choose to appeal such a refusal, the Secretary of State could, if the Secretary sought to move quickly, he could make a direction for the purpose of granting planning permission or just simply call it in. Which would be the obvious thing I would have thought to have done.
The purpose of my amendment was just to test the use case ability, because what worries me is that on the face of it, the ostensible purpose here might be to give the Secretary of State much clearer power to issue a direction, to stop a local authority refusing planning permission for an application that is not in accordance with the development plan. Now, clearly, the Secretary State already has the power to grant planning permission not in accordance with the development plan that is in section 74, in a later subsection.
So the Secretary State can still do that thing. But it looks to me like what the what this actually adds is the ability to stop local authorities refusing permission in circumstances where an application is not in accordance with the development plan. I think we spent a lot of time, especially those of us who remember the debates on the levelling up and regeneration. Bill spent a lot of time emphasising time and again the importance of local authorities having up to date local plans, and that decisions should be made in accordance with those local plans.
So my amendment 65, as an amendment 64 was to add in to section 74 of the Town Country Planning Act specific provision that planning that the Secretary of State may issue directions, in effect, to grant planning permission or to refuse planning permission in accordance with the development plan, because that seems to me to be the best way of guaranteeing the democratic input to planning and indeed the delivery of planning happens in ways that are relatively predictable and successful from the point of view of local communities.
So I do commend amendment 65 as an alternative approach. But in the absence of amendment 65, it just seems to me that amendment 64 adds risk to the system rather than
**** Possible New Speaker ****
substantial benefit. Yeah. Exactly. Right. Oh, I beg to move. Amendment 65.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 65. There's an amendment to amendment 64. At amendment 65 at the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
64. At amendment 65 at the. End, insert the words. Printed. My notes. I've brought 87 A and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My notes. I've brought 87 A and 870 in this group. 870 is a bit of an outlier, but so I'll come to that later in my contribution. But in later in my contribution. But in essence, 87 A is actually supposed to be a bit of a helping hand to the to be a bit of a helping hand to the government in achieving the outcome that they are intending to do. that they are intending to do. Whereas the proposed amendment by the government, 64, really is a huge overreach.
And I should start by
17:04
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
overreach. And I should start by thanking Alexa Culver for helping draft this amendment 87, a new government, amendment 64, would allow the Secretary of State, in effect, to force through planning permissions, even when material considerations like failing IDPs, water shortages, insufficient infrastructure would normally warrant planning refusal. Now, in the press release that was put out, although it didn't directly mention the amendment, the closest explanation could be found was ministers will be able to issue holding directions to stop councils refusing planning permission whilst they consider using their call in powers.
It was suggested that an existing rules, these could only be issued when councils are set to approve applications, and it suggesting that this amendment to the putting forward would probably probably use their calling powers. It's possible this explanation could actually be red herring and doesn't match the much broader powers that are contained in this amendment 64 at the moment, written ministerial statements can govern the procedure for calling. There's no actual need for legislation to improve or refine the process. I've suggested an alternative to the government through 87 A and candidly, planning authorities are only allowed to refuse planning permission when there are justified grounds to do so.
And if that refusal is appealed, of course, the Secretary state can call in that appeal if it wants to. Known as recovering the appeal, therefore making government's stated concern around obstructive or trigger refusals a fairly minor one to legislate for. So the challenge here is that that we need to try and make sure that we improve other parts of the bill, of course, in order to achieve but just a little bit more detail, the clause would permit the Secretary of State to pass a new type of development order that prevents local planning authorities from refusing to grant planning permission, for example, where there's insufficient water supply or the like.
And up until now, development orders were only used to govern or constrain how planning authorities positively granted consent, and this amendment turns that around for the first time and ask the Secretary of State to prevent refusals of planning permission. Now, undoubtedly, development orders do have to be made by statutory instrument, although I believe that that's the nature procedure. But there are no obvious constraints on how the power can be used. The bars to refusal can be used to override local real world on the ground constraints.
The development and planning authorities may be forced to consent, for example, where EDPs are failing or unimplemented. So in terms of the speed of impact, there are widely publicised water shortage issues in many parts of the country, and I am concerned that the given that the this particular new clause is expected to come into force on the day, we could see a flurry of directions being issued as a consequence. I am very concerned about that. And as I say, by the good help of Alexa Culver, 87 A would not have the Kintyre overreach but would potentially help the minister achieve their aim.
8070 is something very close to my heart, and that is about considering local communities who go to a lot of efforts to register assets of community value. And at the moment, the regulations are such that there are very few examples where a building can has does so only a few are protected from existing permitted development rights in to have demolition. And those are a part, and I think two other examples of some social issues. I think a theatre is a good example.
I have seen this first hand at my Lords when a community came together. It's not the most straightforward of processes of registering an asset to community value. But they did. And then when the time came, when the owner of said community assets was just starting to get fed up, they literally just pulled the buildings down, not allowing in any way the local community to even have the chance to buy those assets of the developer. Now, my Lords, I'm conscious the government will have legislation later this year about local communities.
I really don't want to have to return at that stage to press the case and get these changes made. Now it's when we bring in legislation, as happened in the Localism Act, to empower communities, which I know the government says they support. Let's not continue to have sat in our legislation where literally the rug is pulled away from those local communities, and in the particular case, it was a sports centre and a theatre, both much cherished, actually, both marketed for reasons for housebuilding in that area and for people to move there.
So all these new communities that we're talking about, well, actually, as it turns out today, unfortunately those things could be built. And then within a day they could be pulled down to make space for more houses as exactly as happened in this particular community in Suffolk. I'm sure it may be the only example. I haven't investigated right around the country, but I felt so strongly about it, and this has been my first opportunity through this bill to try and rectify what I genuinely believe is wrong, and I hope that the House may support potentially later
**** Possible New Speaker ****
tonight. Likewise. Briefly in support of Baroness.
It was suggested that an existing rules, these could only be issued when councils are set to approve applications, and it suggesting that this amendment to the putting forward would probably probably use their calling powers. It's possible this explanation could actually be red herring and doesn't match the much broader powers that are contained in this amendment 64 at the moment, written ministerial statements can govern the procedure for calling. There's no actual need for legislation to improve or refine the process. I've suggested an alternative to the government through 87 A and candidly, planning authorities are only allowed to refuse planning permission when there are justified grounds to do so.
And if that refusal is appealed, of course, the Secretary state can call in that appeal if it wants to. Known as recovering the appeal, therefore making government's stated concern around obstructive or trigger refusals a fairly minor one to legislate for. So the challenge here is that that we need to try and make sure that we improve other parts of the bill, of course, in order to achieve but just a little bit more detail, the clause would permit the Secretary of State to pass a new type of development order that prevents local planning authorities from refusing to grant planning permission, for example, where there's insufficient water supply or the like.
And up until now, development orders were only used to govern or constrain how planning authorities positively granted consent, and this amendment turns that around for the first time and ask the Secretary of State to prevent refusals of planning permission. Now, undoubtedly, development orders do have to be made by statutory instrument, although I believe that that's the nature procedure. But there are no obvious constraints on how the power can be used. The bars to refusal can be used to override local real world on the ground constraints.
The development and planning authorities may be forced to consent, for example, where EDPs are failing or unimplemented. So in terms of the speed of impact, there are widely publicised water shortage issues in many parts of the country, and I am concerned that the given that the this particular new clause is expected to come into force on the day, we could see a flurry of directions being issued as a consequence. I am very concerned about that. And as I say, by the good help of Alexa Culver, 87 A would not have the Kintyre overreach but would potentially help the minister achieve their aim.
8070 is something very close to my heart, and that is about considering local communities who go to a lot of efforts to register assets of community value. And at the moment, the regulations are such that there are very few examples where a building can has does so only a few are protected from existing permitted development rights in to have demolition. And those are a part, and I think two other examples of some social issues. I think a theatre is a good example.
I have seen this first hand at my Lords when a community came together. It's not the most straightforward of processes of registering an asset to community value. But they did. And then when the time came, when the owner of said community assets was just starting to get fed up, they literally just pulled the buildings down, not allowing in any way the local community to even have the chance to buy those assets of the developer. Now, my Lords, I'm conscious the government will have legislation later this year about local communities.
I really don't want to have to return at that stage to press the case and get these changes made. Now it's when we bring in legislation, as happened in the Localism Act, to empower communities, which I know the government says they support. Let's not continue to have sat in our legislation where literally the rug is pulled away from those local communities, and in the particular case, it was a sports centre and a theatre, both much cherished, actually, both marketed for reasons for housebuilding in that area and for people to move there.
So all these new communities that we're talking about, well, actually, as it turns out today, unfortunately those things could be built. And then within a day they could be pulled down to make space for more houses as exactly as happened in this particular community in Suffolk. I'm sure it may be the only example. I haven't investigated right around the country, but I felt so strongly about it, and this has been my first opportunity through this bill to try and rectify what I genuinely believe is wrong, and I hope that the House may support potentially later
**** Possible New Speaker ****
tonight. Likewise. Briefly in support of Baroness.
17:11
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly in support of Baroness. 7DI. Have an amendment later. On, amendment 102. Likely to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On, amendment 102. Likely to be heard on Monday, which seeks to extend the current assets the Community value scheme, to include cultural assets. So I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cultural assets. So I. Do have a particular. Interest in how the scheme, as it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stands at present. Does and should work. Baroness coffee's. Amendment and mine were considered in the same group at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
considered in the same group at committee stage. Baroness Coffey are pointed out that some, as you said just. Now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Some, if not. already. Been added. To the town and Country planning general Permitted.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
general Permitted. Development England. Order 2015. Which has been. A move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A move. In the right direction. But I. Certainly agree that assets of community value should. Be added. Strangely, then we have.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Strangely, then we have. A. Situation where. Through the 2015. Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Certain cultural. Venues such as concert. Halls and theatres are protected, but community. Assets at such.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Assets at such. Are. Not, which feels incredibly. Inconsistent. Certainly in relation to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Certainly in relation to the Community Asset Scheme as itself as it stands now. I find what Baroness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
so. In considerable detail.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In considerable detail. At committee stage, how. A new. Owner can ride roughshod. Over a community.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Over a community. It's not just wrong, it's. Frankly outrageous. Legislation is not always the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Legislation is not always the right thing, as I think the minister points out quite a lot. But I do think this is a perfect instance. Of where.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of where. A gap. In the. Law ought to be plugged, ought to be addressed in the community's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be addressed in the community's for. This if she takes 87 D to a vote.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This if she takes 87 D to a vote. Amendment 64. Has been packaged. In the. Media, and indeed even in the
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly in support of Baroness. 7DI. Have an amendment later. On, amendment 102. Likely to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On, amendment 102. Likely to be heard on Monday, which seeks to extend the current assets the Community value scheme, to include cultural assets. So I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cultural assets. So I. Do have a particular. Interest in how the scheme, as it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stands at present. Does and should work. Baroness coffee's. Amendment and mine were considered in the same group at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
considered in the same group at committee stage. Baroness Coffey are pointed out that some, as you said just. Now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Some, if not. already. Been added. To the town and Country planning general Permitted.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
general Permitted. Development England. Order 2015. Which has been. A move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A move. In the right direction. But I. Certainly agree that assets of community value should. Be added. Strangely, then we have.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Strangely, then we have. A. Situation where. Through the 2015. Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Certain cultural. Venues such as concert. Halls and theatres are protected, but community. Assets at such.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Assets at such. Are. Not, which feels incredibly. Inconsistent. Certainly in relation to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Certainly in relation to the Community Asset Scheme as itself as it stands now. I find what Baroness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
so. In considerable detail.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In considerable detail. At committee stage, how. A new. Owner can ride roughshod. Over a community.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Over a community. It's not just wrong, it's. Frankly outrageous. Legislation is not always the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Legislation is not always the right thing, as I think the minister points out quite a lot. But I do think this is a perfect instance. Of where.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of where. A gap. In the. Law ought to be plugged, ought to be addressed in the community's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be addressed in the community's for. This if she takes 87 D to a vote.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This if she takes 87 D to a vote. Amendment 64. Has been packaged. In the. Media, and indeed even in the
17:12
Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Media, and indeed even in the marshalled list, as augmenting the Secretary of State's power to call Secretary of State's power to call in an application. But as a noble Lady, the minister made clear in opening it in fact doesn't do that. It leaves section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the calling power unchanged. What it actually. Does is augments the holding power under section 74, the 1990 act. So the Secretary of State can issue restrictions on the refusal, planning Commission to facilitate.
Consideration of the call in power. And in that context, I do seek some clarification from the noble Lady Minister as to what is intended procedurally, were this amendment to become law. Currently, there are procedural safeguards in place in relation to called in planning applications. There is a statutory safeguard in subsection five of section 77, which gives either the applicant or the local planning authority the right to be heard before an inspector appointed plainly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will. Not be changed. Because there is no.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Proposal to amend. Section 77, but that power, that obligation, but that power, that obligation, forgive me for the Secretary of State to cause a. Hearing to be heard, that that is also subject of a policy that exists in the planning Inspectorate's guidance on calling proceedings, and that policy in the Planning Inspectorate guidance is Planning Inspectorate guidance is that the right to be heard under section 77, subsection five, the right to be heard of a local right to be heard of a local authority or an applicant is to be exercised by means of the inquiry exercised by means of the inquiry procedure and the public inquiry procedure, of course, allows for greater.
Scrutiny of the evidence, greater. Scrutiny of the evidence, greater public participation than a mere one day informal hearing. And mere one day informal hearing. And so my question to the noble Lady minister is this is, is she prepared to offer a commitment on behalf of to offer a commitment on behalf of the government that there will be no dilution of the procedural safeguard in the Planning Inspectorate published policy, and that the right published policy, and that the right of a local planning authority to insist upon an inquiry and to have that that statutory right to be heard, exercised through the inquiry procedure, as opposed to a lesser procedure, will not be diluted and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will remain. Will I? Lord?
Lord Banner (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Media, and indeed even in the marshalled list, as augmenting the Secretary of State's power to call Secretary of State's power to call in an application. But as a noble Lady, the minister made clear in opening it in fact doesn't do that. It leaves section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the calling power unchanged. What it actually. Does is augments the holding power under section 74, the 1990 act. So the Secretary of State can issue restrictions on the refusal, planning Commission to facilitate.
Consideration of the call in power. And in that context, I do seek some clarification from the noble Lady Minister as to what is intended procedurally, were this amendment to become law. Currently, there are procedural safeguards in place in relation to called in planning applications. There is a statutory safeguard in subsection five of section 77, which gives either the applicant or the local planning authority the right to be heard before an inspector appointed plainly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will. Not be changed. Because there is no.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Proposal to amend. Section 77, but that power, that obligation, but that power, that obligation, forgive me for the Secretary of State to cause a. Hearing to be heard, that that is also subject of a policy that exists in the planning Inspectorate's guidance on calling proceedings, and that policy in the Planning Inspectorate guidance is Planning Inspectorate guidance is that the right to be heard under section 77, subsection five, the right to be heard of a local right to be heard of a local authority or an applicant is to be exercised by means of the inquiry exercised by means of the inquiry procedure and the public inquiry procedure, of course, allows for greater.
Scrutiny of the evidence, greater. Scrutiny of the evidence, greater public participation than a mere one day informal hearing. And mere one day informal hearing. And so my question to the noble Lady minister is this is, is she prepared to offer a commitment on behalf of to offer a commitment on behalf of the government that there will be no dilution of the procedural safeguard in the Planning Inspectorate published policy, and that the right published policy, and that the right of a local planning authority to insist upon an inquiry and to have that that statutory right to be heard, exercised through the inquiry procedure, as opposed to a lesser procedure, will not be diluted and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will remain. Will I? Lord?
17:14
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will I? Lord? my Lords, the government's. New Newman at. 64, was built. By the Minister in her letter
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By the Minister in her letter that she wrote to all peers laying out this amendment is seeking to address a minor gap. I'm not I'm not sure about that. And I think other noble Lords have also expressed different concerns from mine. And so this I'd like to take this opportunity to seek reassurances from the Minister. I'm grateful for the way in which he presented the circumstances in which call in, and the safeguards in which in which call full in can take place.
In her introduction to the amendment. But but I, I think that this amendment could. Be read as a considerable change in tone about the government's intentions and role in the planning system. I'm probably caricaturing it, but it used to be that under the current arrangements, government was regarded almost as a sort of knight and a white horse coming in at the last minute. On planning decisions where the local authority were getting it wrong in granting permission, often in cases which were then going to be to the detriment of the environment.
And that was a rather fine thing in my view, under this amendment, the intention flits in in the other direction. The minister can call it in if it feels the local planning authorities possibly wrong in refusing the application. For example, if it's insisting on environmental protection and instead overturn it, or at least consider
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whether the decision should be. Called in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Called in. In favour of development. And I'm anxious about that, because the anxious about that, because the current climate appears to be that the environment is wrong and development is right. It's the sort of modern day version of raids under the beds, really. Now, I think we're the beds, really. Now, I think we're all keen on growth and on housing, and I heard a very impassioned and I heard a very impassioned speech recently by another minister of the Labour government about the of the Labour government about the need for housing, for communities and for families who have who live
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in substandard conditions, whose children are living in overcrowded conditions, who don't have a home over their. Own.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Own. Who are suffering in terms of their development as a result. And their development as a result. And so getting good quality, affordable housing is a really important thing housing is a really important thing for our communities. But this amendment could have several amendment could have several downsides, and I'd just ask the minister, perhaps to respond and reassure me. One is I wouldn't like reassure me. One is I wouldn't like to be a local planning authority right now.
You're if you do. You're if you don't. If you make a decision wrong in one direction, you get called. And if you make a decision wrong in the other direction, you get called in. But if a dog's life
**** Possible New Speaker ****
really quite, quite tricky. Now. The second concern I've got is that, quite rightly, and I think the noble Lady, the minister is a prime noble Lady, the minister is a prime exponent of the commitment that government should have to make more government should have to make more decisions locally, in locally appropriate ways. And I know that her track record as a leader of a her track record as a leader of a local authority was exemplary in that respect. And we're due to get the devolution bill, which will take this devolution of responsibility and decision making even closer to and decision making even closer to communities.
But this amendment seems to take that out the other way. It seems to imply that there are more circumstances in which national decisions will be made rather than local decisions. But
**** Possible New Speaker ****
rather than local decisions. But above all, it's the change of tone that I would worry about. I mean, I. Really do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Express concern about some of the public statements that have been made about nature being a blocker in made about nature being a blocker in a way which is incredibly polarising and unhelpful and quite frankly, in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and unhelpful and quite frankly, in many cases not true. I just recently received from the. Home.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Home. Builders Federation their list of ten. Barriers to housing development. And of that ten, there is only really one that applies to nature. The rest are all sorts of other considerations. So nature shouldn't be demonised in the way, in the way it is. And I would worry that this amendment could be either seen as doing that or interpreted in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
practice as doing that. my Lords, in the last group, your Lordships' House gave a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lordships' House gave a. Pretty. Strong stare, and. It felt that the role of. Councillors and councils in
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will I? Lord? my Lords, the government's. New Newman at. 64, was built. By the Minister in her letter
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By the Minister in her letter that she wrote to all peers laying out this amendment is seeking to address a minor gap. I'm not I'm not sure about that. And I think other noble Lords have also expressed different concerns from mine. And so this I'd like to take this opportunity to seek reassurances from the Minister. I'm grateful for the way in which he presented the circumstances in which call in, and the safeguards in which in which call full in can take place.
In her introduction to the amendment. But but I, I think that this amendment could. Be read as a considerable change in tone about the government's intentions and role in the planning system. I'm probably caricaturing it, but it used to be that under the current arrangements, government was regarded almost as a sort of knight and a white horse coming in at the last minute. On planning decisions where the local authority were getting it wrong in granting permission, often in cases which were then going to be to the detriment of the environment.
And that was a rather fine thing in my view, under this amendment, the intention flits in in the other direction. The minister can call it in if it feels the local planning authorities possibly wrong in refusing the application. For example, if it's insisting on environmental protection and instead overturn it, or at least consider
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whether the decision should be. Called in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Called in. In favour of development. And I'm anxious about that, because the anxious about that, because the current climate appears to be that the environment is wrong and development is right. It's the sort of modern day version of raids under the beds, really. Now, I think we're the beds, really. Now, I think we're all keen on growth and on housing, and I heard a very impassioned and I heard a very impassioned speech recently by another minister of the Labour government about the of the Labour government about the need for housing, for communities and for families who have who live
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in substandard conditions, whose children are living in overcrowded conditions, who don't have a home over their. Own.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Own. Who are suffering in terms of their development as a result. And their development as a result. And so getting good quality, affordable housing is a really important thing housing is a really important thing for our communities. But this amendment could have several amendment could have several downsides, and I'd just ask the minister, perhaps to respond and reassure me. One is I wouldn't like reassure me. One is I wouldn't like to be a local planning authority right now.
You're if you do. You're if you don't. If you make a decision wrong in one direction, you get called. And if you make a decision wrong in the other direction, you get called in. But if a dog's life
**** Possible New Speaker ****
really quite, quite tricky. Now. The second concern I've got is that, quite rightly, and I think the noble Lady, the minister is a prime noble Lady, the minister is a prime exponent of the commitment that government should have to make more government should have to make more decisions locally, in locally appropriate ways. And I know that her track record as a leader of a her track record as a leader of a local authority was exemplary in that respect. And we're due to get the devolution bill, which will take this devolution of responsibility and decision making even closer to and decision making even closer to communities.
But this amendment seems to take that out the other way. It seems to imply that there are more circumstances in which national decisions will be made rather than local decisions. But
**** Possible New Speaker ****
rather than local decisions. But above all, it's the change of tone that I would worry about. I mean, I. Really do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Express concern about some of the public statements that have been made about nature being a blocker in made about nature being a blocker in a way which is incredibly polarising and unhelpful and quite frankly, in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and unhelpful and quite frankly, in many cases not true. I just recently received from the. Home.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Home. Builders Federation their list of ten. Barriers to housing development. And of that ten, there is only really one that applies to nature. The rest are all sorts of other considerations. So nature shouldn't be demonised in the way, in the way it is. And I would worry that this amendment could be either seen as doing that or interpreted in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
practice as doing that. my Lords, in the last group, your Lordships' House gave a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lordships' House gave a. Pretty. Strong stare, and. It felt that the role of. Councillors and councils in
17:19
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Councillors and councils in determining local planning applications locally, based on the plan, not capriciously acting on plan, not capriciously acting on balance with all the material considerations taken into account, was a. Very important principle, not just of the way we run things in this country, but the fact that decisions are made by accountable people in a democratic way. And I'm just astonished that this government, amendment 64. Has come across, although I'm not surprised that the government benches on the back benches are so sparsely populated, because what this amendment does is emasculate the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
principle of. A proper. Local planning process. It raises
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Local planning process. It raises the spectre of, at very short time scales, political. Interference in scales, political. Interference in what is. A quasi judicial process.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what is. A quasi judicial process. And clearly, and for reasons I. Will ask for a reassurance. In a moment. Demonstrates a prematurity that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prematurity that. Is. Likely to slow. Down the process of development
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Down the process of development rather than speed it up. And my evidence that the slowing down was given by my Noble friend Lord given by my Noble friend Lord banner, and I didn't take down all the different sections and the different stages. But there's clearly statutory safeguards, overrides practice guidance procedures as well as statute there, procedures as well as statute there, so that when development processes come forward, everybody has their come forward, everybody has their say in the right way with the appropriate process.
And whilst there will always be a winner or a there will always be a winner or a loser, at least people can say it was done properly because my concern was done properly because my concern with this is what is the process by which a minister may call in. A which a minister may call in. A process for stalling it, on what intelligence will be relied and on what timescale? Because I've sort of thought amongst myself, is it because and of course planning committee agendas are published seven days in advance by normally before the meeting.
So within sort of five working days of a, a recommendation from the officers for refusal, what is the process by which ministers will be advised. Well, you better jump in on this one. This one might go wrong. What happens if there's a recommendation actually for approval. But well, on the basis of hearsay.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Rumour. Possibly a letter in the local
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Possibly a letter in the local newspaper, there's a suggestion that the committee might decide to go the other way, and I can't quite other way, and I can't quite understand how that would normally happen, because anyone who sits on the planning committee knows they keep their mouths shut for risk of predetermination. So on what basis?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
predetermination. So on what basis? And it would it be? I mean, this is and this is where I'm concerned about the political. Interference in planning. The party.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The party. Political because nods and winks, you know. Well, we think we think that so-and-so on the other side that so-and-so on the other side might be going this way. And of course, it all belies the fact, as we all know, that because the we all know, that because the planning committee meets regularly and it's quite an onerous thing, and other people have different responsibilities. You have the series of substitutions, quite properly trained substitutes on the planning committee. So with all those moving parts, I just wonder those moving parts, I just wonder with a week to go on what basis would the Secretary of State jump in would the Secretary of State jump in and then would it be? And then I played to the noble lady Baroness played to the noble lady Baroness Jones point about a quango report, you know, at what stage are we going to prematurely judge of all the different material considerations, that one report may be more important than another? But of course, we all know that it's the role of the committee to balance all of them in the round and take all the material.
Considerations in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there. Are we going to sleepwalk. Into. A situation where ministers give a vie an additional. Vicarious respectability to one set of reports over another, with only half the over another, with only half the evidence to hand, not seeing the benefit of all the objections, the proposals, the debate in the round, proposals, the debate in the round, in, in, in the chamber. And of course, we understand that the purpose of this bill is to speed up planning. But it seems to me that the consequence is to slow it right the consequence is to slow it right down, because how on earth would we end up in a situation where ministers could be properly advised? ministers could be properly advised? Look, in this House and in Parliament, there's a proper 12 stage process.
My Lords, we were at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stage process. My Lords, we were at reasons. My Noble friend Lord banner gave the complexity of the. Detail here and all that interplay. This should have been brought in at committee or in a much earlier stage. But here we in a much earlier stage. But here we are at the 11th hour in in Parliament's revising chamber, trying to work this out on the hoof.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trying to work this out on the hoof. I just cannot see. I cannot support this because. It. Rides a coach and horses.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Rides a coach and horses. Through established process. Principles. Democracy. And it's half baked and it should be thrown
**** Possible New Speaker ****
out. So it's a pleasure to follow. Noble Earl of Clancarty. To speak.
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Councillors and councils in determining local planning applications locally, based on the plan, not capriciously acting on plan, not capriciously acting on balance with all the material considerations taken into account, was a. Very important principle, not just of the way we run things in this country, but the fact that decisions are made by accountable people in a democratic way. And I'm just astonished that this government, amendment 64. Has come across, although I'm not surprised that the government benches on the back benches are so sparsely populated, because what this amendment does is emasculate the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
principle of. A proper. Local planning process. It raises
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Local planning process. It raises the spectre of, at very short time scales, political. Interference in scales, political. Interference in what is. A quasi judicial process.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what is. A quasi judicial process. And clearly, and for reasons I. Will ask for a reassurance. In a moment. Demonstrates a prematurity that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
prematurity that. Is. Likely to slow. Down the process of development
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Down the process of development rather than speed it up. And my evidence that the slowing down was given by my Noble friend Lord given by my Noble friend Lord banner, and I didn't take down all the different sections and the different stages. But there's clearly statutory safeguards, overrides practice guidance procedures as well as statute there, procedures as well as statute there, so that when development processes come forward, everybody has their come forward, everybody has their say in the right way with the appropriate process.
And whilst there will always be a winner or a there will always be a winner or a loser, at least people can say it was done properly because my concern was done properly because my concern with this is what is the process by which a minister may call in. A which a minister may call in. A process for stalling it, on what intelligence will be relied and on what timescale? Because I've sort of thought amongst myself, is it because and of course planning committee agendas are published seven days in advance by normally before the meeting.
So within sort of five working days of a, a recommendation from the officers for refusal, what is the process by which ministers will be advised. Well, you better jump in on this one. This one might go wrong. What happens if there's a recommendation actually for approval. But well, on the basis of hearsay.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Rumour. Possibly a letter in the local
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Possibly a letter in the local newspaper, there's a suggestion that the committee might decide to go the other way, and I can't quite other way, and I can't quite understand how that would normally happen, because anyone who sits on the planning committee knows they keep their mouths shut for risk of predetermination. So on what basis?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
predetermination. So on what basis? And it would it be? I mean, this is and this is where I'm concerned about the political. Interference in planning. The party.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The party. Political because nods and winks, you know. Well, we think we think that so-and-so on the other side that so-and-so on the other side might be going this way. And of course, it all belies the fact, as we all know, that because the we all know, that because the planning committee meets regularly and it's quite an onerous thing, and other people have different responsibilities. You have the series of substitutions, quite properly trained substitutes on the planning committee. So with all those moving parts, I just wonder those moving parts, I just wonder with a week to go on what basis would the Secretary of State jump in would the Secretary of State jump in and then would it be? And then I played to the noble lady Baroness played to the noble lady Baroness Jones point about a quango report, you know, at what stage are we going to prematurely judge of all the different material considerations, that one report may be more important than another? But of course, we all know that it's the role of the committee to balance all of them in the round and take all the material.
Considerations in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there. Are we going to sleepwalk. Into. A situation where ministers give a vie an additional. Vicarious respectability to one set of reports over another, with only half the over another, with only half the evidence to hand, not seeing the benefit of all the objections, the proposals, the debate in the round, proposals, the debate in the round, in, in, in the chamber. And of course, we understand that the purpose of this bill is to speed up planning. But it seems to me that the consequence is to slow it right the consequence is to slow it right down, because how on earth would we end up in a situation where ministers could be properly advised? ministers could be properly advised? Look, in this House and in Parliament, there's a proper 12 stage process.
My Lords, we were at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stage process. My Lords, we were at reasons. My Noble friend Lord banner gave the complexity of the. Detail here and all that interplay. This should have been brought in at committee or in a much earlier stage. But here we in a much earlier stage. But here we are at the 11th hour in in Parliament's revising chamber, trying to work this out on the hoof.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
trying to work this out on the hoof. I just cannot see. I cannot support this because. It. Rides a coach and horses.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Rides a coach and horses. Through established process. Principles. Democracy. And it's half baked and it should be thrown
**** Possible New Speaker ****
out. So it's a pleasure to follow. Noble Earl of Clancarty. To speak.
17:24
Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To speak. In strong support of amendment 87, in the name of the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
87, in the name of the noble addresses. A clear. Gap in our planning framework, the. Ease with which. Valued community buildings can be demolished under permitted development rights. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for reminding this committee that since 2017, it has not been possible to demolish a pub under permitted development rights, and that. Since 2020, the same protection has rightly been extended to theatres, live music venues and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
concert halls. But every other community building. From sports. Halls. Scouts, huts.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Scouts, huts. Youth clubs. Village halls. Arts centres, community hubs,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Arts centres, community hubs, social clubs, the rehearsal rooms. Day centres.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And Faith Spencer Faith Spence spaces can be legally be demolished through permitted development under through permitted development under class B, part 11 of the General Permitted Development Order, usually via only a prior approval notice to via only a prior approval notice to the Council. In other words, a community can spend months achieving community can spend months achieving assets of community value status, believing it is secured protection,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
believing it is secured protection, building. Building with no full. Planning process and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning process and the opportunity to save it is. Lost. Forever, the minister suggested. In response. To the noble Baroness committee
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the noble Baroness committee that local authorities can already protect such assets by issuing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protect such assets by issuing article four directions. But while that may sound reassuring, in. Practice it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is neither adequate nor realistic. Article four powers are. Slow.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Complex and discretionary. They require public consultation and ministerial approval and significant
**** Possible New Speaker ****
resources that many councils. Simply do not have. They are rarely. Used pre-emptively, and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Used pre-emptively, and. Too often are invoked after buildings have already been lost.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment before us provides a far simpler and fairer solution an. Automatic national. Safeguard for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Safeguard for. Assets that communities. Have already demonstrated to be. Of real. Social value.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Social value. These are not sentimental relics. They are the social infrastructure. Of everyday life, the places
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of everyday life, the places where children learn to play sport, where community choirs rehearse, where. Food banks and lunch clubs operate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Where amateur dramatics. Societies, afterschool classes and local support. Groups meet.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Once demolished. These. Spaces are almost never replaced. And as has been.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And as has been. Referenced, the London Nightlife Task Force, which offers strategic
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Task Force, which offers strategic advice to the mayor and will publish a major action plan later this year, has already underlined. The urgency of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The urgency of. This issue. Its early findings show that demolition and redevelopment continue.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
redevelopment continue. To erode London's community. And cultural infrastructure, despite existing local powers. The task force, supported by the Night-Time Industries Association,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Music Venue Trust and the UK. Hospitality. Is calling for stronger statutory. Safeguards to. Prevent the loss of spaces that sustained.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sustained. Local life and creativity. And while its recommendations are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
directed at London, the same challenge. Exists nationwide. Communities in Manchester. Bristol.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bristol. smaller. Towns face the. Same slow. Erosion of. Shared civic space.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Shared civic space. Too often replaced by development that contributes. Little to social cohesion. If we accept.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If we accept. That pubs, theatres and. Music venues deserve protection from demolition, surely the same from demolition, surely the same logic must apply to any buildings formally recognised by its community
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as an asset of value. This modest. Reform would give communities a genuine say before their most.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their most. Valued spaces disappear. Yeah. It's a pleasure to follow the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freiburg, who's one of the house's great champions of the arts and cultural life. And
Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To speak. In strong support of amendment 87, in the name of the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
87, in the name of the noble addresses. A clear. Gap in our planning framework, the. Ease with which. Valued community buildings can be demolished under permitted development rights. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for reminding this committee that since 2017, it has not been possible to demolish a pub under permitted development rights, and that. Since 2020, the same protection has rightly been extended to theatres, live music venues and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
concert halls. But every other community building. From sports. Halls. Scouts, huts.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Scouts, huts. Youth clubs. Village halls. Arts centres, community hubs,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Arts centres, community hubs, social clubs, the rehearsal rooms. Day centres.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And Faith Spencer Faith Spence spaces can be legally be demolished through permitted development under through permitted development under class B, part 11 of the General Permitted Development Order, usually via only a prior approval notice to via only a prior approval notice to the Council. In other words, a community can spend months achieving community can spend months achieving assets of community value status, believing it is secured protection,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
believing it is secured protection, building. Building with no full. Planning process and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning process and the opportunity to save it is. Lost. Forever, the minister suggested. In response. To the noble Baroness committee
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the noble Baroness committee that local authorities can already protect such assets by issuing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protect such assets by issuing article four directions. But while that may sound reassuring, in. Practice it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is neither adequate nor realistic. Article four powers are. Slow.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Complex and discretionary. They require public consultation and ministerial approval and significant
**** Possible New Speaker ****
resources that many councils. Simply do not have. They are rarely. Used pre-emptively, and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Used pre-emptively, and. Too often are invoked after buildings have already been lost.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment before us provides a far simpler and fairer solution an. Automatic national. Safeguard for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Safeguard for. Assets that communities. Have already demonstrated to be. Of real. Social value.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Social value. These are not sentimental relics. They are the social infrastructure. Of everyday life, the places
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of everyday life, the places where children learn to play sport, where community choirs rehearse, where. Food banks and lunch clubs operate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Where amateur dramatics. Societies, afterschool classes and local support. Groups meet.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Once demolished. These. Spaces are almost never replaced. And as has been.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And as has been. Referenced, the London Nightlife Task Force, which offers strategic
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Task Force, which offers strategic advice to the mayor and will publish a major action plan later this year, has already underlined. The urgency of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The urgency of. This issue. Its early findings show that demolition and redevelopment continue.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
redevelopment continue. To erode London's community. And cultural infrastructure, despite existing local powers. The task force, supported by the Night-Time Industries Association,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Music Venue Trust and the UK. Hospitality. Is calling for stronger statutory. Safeguards to. Prevent the loss of spaces that sustained.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sustained. Local life and creativity. And while its recommendations are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
directed at London, the same challenge. Exists nationwide. Communities in Manchester. Bristol.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bristol. smaller. Towns face the. Same slow. Erosion of. Shared civic space.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Shared civic space. Too often replaced by development that contributes. Little to social cohesion. If we accept.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If we accept. That pubs, theatres and. Music venues deserve protection from demolition, surely the same from demolition, surely the same logic must apply to any buildings formally recognised by its community
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as an asset of value. This modest. Reform would give communities a genuine say before their most.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their most. Valued spaces disappear. Yeah. It's a pleasure to follow the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freiburg, who's one of the house's great champions of the arts and cultural life. And
17:28
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the arts and cultural life. And briefly, I. Will. Also express the green group support for amendment 87 D in the support for amendment 87 D in the name of the noble Lady Lady Coffee. This is ensuring that assets of community value cannot be demolished, and it's worth going back to where the assets of Community Value started 2011. And that was so hard fought for to create that category of buildings, of structures and the idea that could effectively be lost under permitted development rights.
I think the noble Ladies identified a really important issue, and I really hope the House will back that. But I rise chiefly to speak against government amendment 64, and I think we've already heard some really important points. Both noble Lords, Lansley and Fuller pointed out just how late this is coming in in the process, and how we haven't had the chance to have the proper scrutiny. And I think the noble Lady Baroness Young of Old Scone considerable change in tone. The noble Lady is right, but I'd go further and say it's a considerable change in direction of the entire law.
And that's something that surely should not be done this late in the process. But more than that, I want to note that I've received, and I'm sure other noble Lords have too, from the Better Planning Coalition, from the National Trust, from the Wildlife Trusts. Please to say please reject this government amendment. And we look at the situation, the arguments they're making, absolutely rightly, this amendment embeds into the law concerning narrative about development at any cost. It doesn't acknowledge pushes aside the fact that economic activity, human life is dependent on the environment.
The economy is a complete subset of the environment. And the core purpose of the planning policy has been supposed to be to ensure that developments do not happen in the wrong place, or that destroy nature, gratuitously or without adequate consideration. And it really feels like I think it was the noble Lord Lord Fuller said that this would open up decisions to politics. Well, this is purely politics. It seems to be being put in to drive headlines that say that the government is taking a hard line with capsules that are opposing new housing in particular, and particularly, I note that the clause extends the powers of the Secretary of State to issue directions to restricted local planning authorities to refuse planning permission, either on particular applications, which we've mostly talked about, or, more worryingly, as I understand, and I stand to be corrected by the noble Lady if this is not correct, whole categories of development.
So, for example, this could remove the ability to refuse as a class data centres, something your Lordships' House has become very concerned about in terms of their environmental impact, or any C3 dwellings in an area of low housing delivery and taken in combination with the proposed National Scheme of delegation introduced by clause 51, about which we've just had a letter which seeks to ensure that certain development types are determined solely by offices rather than a planning committee. There's a huge, significant, massively significant undermining of local decision making, so the green groups will be opposing in the strongest terms, Government amendment 64 and will be expressing that at every opportunity.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the arts and cultural life. And briefly, I. Will. Also express the green group support for amendment 87 D in the support for amendment 87 D in the name of the noble Lady Lady Coffee. This is ensuring that assets of community value cannot be demolished, and it's worth going back to where the assets of Community Value started 2011. And that was so hard fought for to create that category of buildings, of structures and the idea that could effectively be lost under permitted development rights.
I think the noble Ladies identified a really important issue, and I really hope the House will back that. But I rise chiefly to speak against government amendment 64, and I think we've already heard some really important points. Both noble Lords, Lansley and Fuller pointed out just how late this is coming in in the process, and how we haven't had the chance to have the proper scrutiny. And I think the noble Lady Baroness Young of Old Scone considerable change in tone. The noble Lady is right, but I'd go further and say it's a considerable change in direction of the entire law.
And that's something that surely should not be done this late in the process. But more than that, I want to note that I've received, and I'm sure other noble Lords have too, from the Better Planning Coalition, from the National Trust, from the Wildlife Trusts. Please to say please reject this government amendment. And we look at the situation, the arguments they're making, absolutely rightly, this amendment embeds into the law concerning narrative about development at any cost. It doesn't acknowledge pushes aside the fact that economic activity, human life is dependent on the environment.
The economy is a complete subset of the environment. And the core purpose of the planning policy has been supposed to be to ensure that developments do not happen in the wrong place, or that destroy nature, gratuitously or without adequate consideration. And it really feels like I think it was the noble Lord Lord Fuller said that this would open up decisions to politics. Well, this is purely politics. It seems to be being put in to drive headlines that say that the government is taking a hard line with capsules that are opposing new housing in particular, and particularly, I note that the clause extends the powers of the Secretary of State to issue directions to restricted local planning authorities to refuse planning permission, either on particular applications, which we've mostly talked about, or, more worryingly, as I understand, and I stand to be corrected by the noble Lady if this is not correct, whole categories of development.
So, for example, this could remove the ability to refuse as a class data centres, something your Lordships' House has become very concerned about in terms of their environmental impact, or any C3 dwellings in an area of low housing delivery and taken in combination with the proposed National Scheme of delegation introduced by clause 51, about which we've just had a letter which seeks to ensure that certain development types are determined solely by offices rather than a planning committee. There's a huge, significant, massively significant undermining of local decision making, so the green groups will be opposing in the strongest terms, Government amendment 64 and will be expressing that at every opportunity.
17:32
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
Lords once more, in this bill, the government has chosen to add a new clause, amendment 64. At this very late stage in the Bill's progress, as other noble Lords have pointed out, it really is not acceptable practice for the reasons that the noble Baroness Barnett has said, which is we have not been able to give this new clause a proper and appropriate depth of scrutiny. Now, the new clause only has four lines, and that includes its title.
So the are the two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning, decision making. So when I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought, perhaps thought maybe I've got got it wrong. But having heard from across the House from the noble Lord Lansley noble Lord banner, as the XR expert in this House on planning matters, putting questioning the noble Baroness and Minister on the meaning of what is being proposed.
Noble Lord of noble Baroness Coffey, the noble Baroness young of all, raised considerable concerns about what the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. Now, in her own inimitable way, the noble Baroness the Minister has been able to underplay this this clause by saying it's just an anomaly. It's not going to make any difference really. Well, it is not going to make any difference, really. Don't bring. It in at this late stage. You
**** Possible New Speaker ****
know, if it's so. Important. I'm sure the government would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sure the government would have noticed it either in the discussions at the other end of the hive of the Parliament or other committee, at least at committee stage here. So I have this feeling that I may not be as unimportant a that I may not be as unimportant a clause as the noble Baroness the Minister has been making out. So where does that leave us then? So? where does that leave us then? So? No. And all noble Lords who have had experience, and many of us have of the process of planning applications, will know that.
They applications, will know that. They planning committees are required, rightly required, to make their rightly required, to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation and the planning legislation and the National Planning Policy framework and all relevant national policies and all relevant national policies and their Local Plan, and which includes local planning policies. They if they if a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so. As others have said, with valid planning reasons.
Failure to do so means that the applicant rightly takes that to a Planning Inspectorate for a appeal against that decision. And if the planning committee has made a foolish decision not giving valid reasons for refusal, then that the Planning Inspectorate rightly awards costs against the Council, which is why there are many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils, because planning officers in the local planning authority will advise their members accordingly. So.
So then you ask yourself if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of it? Why is. This necessary to. Call it in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Call it in. Before a refusal has been given.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before a refusal has been given. And. That the only reason that I can And. That the only reason that I can come to is, is that it's because the government wishes to push through applications that are not relevant applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. And I think the noble Baroness young has I think the noble Baroness young has hit the nail on the head, actually, which is it substantially changes the tone and direction of a the tone and direction of a planning, planning a planning will so that it becomes more of a national decision making process rather than local decision making rather than local decision making process.
Now, as somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision making, you want proper devolution. making, you want proper devolution. Who thinks that making decisions Who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do, as many other parts of Western Europe do, and have successful governance as a consequence, to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. So where we're where we're heading with this one is that we on these benches. Are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
going to strongly oppose the government. Amendment 64. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. And I have explained to the noble Baroness, the minister out of due courtesy, that I will be that we on these benches will be doing so. these benches will be doing so. Because this is overreach and will Because this is overreach and will not do. Now I move to amendment 8070 not do. Now I move to amendment 8070 and the noble Baroness Coffey and others have referred to it, and the noble Baroness Coffey and I have had noble Baroness Coffey and I have had a brief discussion the other day, and she knows that I support this and she knows that I support this amendment.
8070. So if the noble Baroness wishes to take it to a decision of the highest and then we will support it. But fundamentally, the balance between local and the balance between local and national decision making, that balance is being tipped in too far in the direction of national policy making. And national. This sorry, I think about national decision making on policies and that is not acceptable. And as I have said, we acceptable. And as I have said, we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will oppose amendment 64. This. my Lords. I rise.
So the are the two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning, decision making. So when I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought, perhaps thought maybe I've got got it wrong. But having heard from across the House from the noble Lord Lansley noble Lord banner, as the XR expert in this House on planning matters, putting questioning the noble Baroness and Minister on the meaning of what is being proposed.
Noble Lord of noble Baroness Coffey, the noble Baroness young of all, raised considerable concerns about what the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. Now, in her own inimitable way, the noble Baroness the Minister has been able to underplay this this clause by saying it's just an anomaly. It's not going to make any difference really. Well, it is not going to make any difference, really. Don't bring. It in at this late stage. You
**** Possible New Speaker ****
know, if it's so. Important. I'm sure the government would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sure the government would have noticed it either in the discussions at the other end of the hive of the Parliament or other committee, at least at committee stage here. So I have this feeling that I may not be as unimportant a that I may not be as unimportant a clause as the noble Baroness the Minister has been making out. So where does that leave us then? So? where does that leave us then? So? No. And all noble Lords who have had experience, and many of us have of the process of planning applications, will know that.
They applications, will know that. They planning committees are required, rightly required, to make their rightly required, to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation and the planning legislation and the National Planning Policy framework and all relevant national policies and all relevant national policies and their Local Plan, and which includes local planning policies. They if they if a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so. As others have said, with valid planning reasons.
Failure to do so means that the applicant rightly takes that to a Planning Inspectorate for a appeal against that decision. And if the planning committee has made a foolish decision not giving valid reasons for refusal, then that the Planning Inspectorate rightly awards costs against the Council, which is why there are many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils, because planning officers in the local planning authority will advise their members accordingly. So.
So then you ask yourself if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of it? Why is. This necessary to. Call it in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Call it in. Before a refusal has been given.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before a refusal has been given. And. That the only reason that I can And. That the only reason that I can come to is, is that it's because the government wishes to push through applications that are not relevant applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. And I think the noble Baroness young has I think the noble Baroness young has hit the nail on the head, actually, which is it substantially changes the tone and direction of a the tone and direction of a planning, planning a planning will so that it becomes more of a national decision making process rather than local decision making rather than local decision making process.
Now, as somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision making, you want proper devolution. making, you want proper devolution. Who thinks that making decisions Who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do, as many other parts of Western Europe do, and have successful governance as a consequence, to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. So where we're where we're heading with this one is that we on these benches. Are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
going to strongly oppose the government. Amendment 64. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. And I have explained to the noble Baroness, the minister out of due courtesy, that I will be that we on these benches will be doing so. these benches will be doing so. Because this is overreach and will Because this is overreach and will not do. Now I move to amendment 8070 not do. Now I move to amendment 8070 and the noble Baroness Coffey and others have referred to it, and the noble Baroness Coffey and I have had noble Baroness Coffey and I have had a brief discussion the other day, and she knows that I support this and she knows that I support this amendment.
8070. So if the noble Baroness wishes to take it to a decision of the highest and then we will support it. But fundamentally, the balance between local and the balance between local and national decision making, that balance is being tipped in too far in the direction of national policy making. And national. This sorry, I think about national decision making on policies and that is not acceptable. And as I have said, we acceptable. And as I have said, we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will oppose amendment 64. This. my Lords. I rise.
17:40
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise. To speak to government amendment 64, in this group. This amendment would allow, as we have heard, a. Development order to enable the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Development order to enable the Secretary of State to give direction directions, restricting the refusal. Of planning permission.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of planning permission. In principle by a. Local planning authority in. England.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State already
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by. Calling in an application. For their. Own determination.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Own determination. So I ask the that noble Baroness the Minister firstly, what's changed? Will the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
changed? Will the. Existing guardrails. And provisions governing the call in process remain intact? Will the. Mechanisms by which call in operates are continue as they do now? And how will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision making? The government should explain precisely what this. Amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law, if it represents a fundamental change to the call in power, the government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate.
If the noble Baroness, the Minister cannot provide that assurance, my Lords, will be.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We will. Be inclined to test the opinion of this House on whether this of this House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power. The government's real focus should have government's real focus should have been elsewhere. My Lords, on proportionality, on addressing the implications of the hillside
**** Possible New Speaker ****
implications of the hillside judgement. Energy should be directed towards. Tackling the. Real blockages in the. Planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
system. my Lords, I turn to amendment 65, which I hope will not be required. Tabled by my Noble friend Lord Lansley, and this amendment would Lansley, and this amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt an up to date local plan and in doing so, to date local plan and in doing so, to regain control over the grant of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. And this raises an important point in my law the absence of up to date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration inconsistency and local frustration in the planning system.
The government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due issues this amendment raises due regard and set out a clear detail of how they intend to address the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
concerns it raises. Finally, my Lords, I'm not quite
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sure why my noble friend Baroness Coffey, amendment 87 D is in. This group.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This group. But I think we've heard the feeling of the House on this, and I feeling of the House on this, and I know that it is an issue of which my noble friends feels passionate noble friends feels passionate about. And quite rightly, it is an important issue. The governments important issue. The governments have given on one to communities. On one hand, their community assets or one hand, their community assets or enabled them to take them over, on the other hand with their are not protected from being lost.
So, my protected from being lost. So, my Lords, I think this is an important issue for the minister and I look forward to a response that is very positive on this especially positive on this especially important amendment. My Lords. Well, I hear the strength feeling in the
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise. To speak to government amendment 64, in this group. This amendment would allow, as we have heard, a. Development order to enable the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Development order to enable the Secretary of State to give direction directions, restricting the refusal. Of planning permission.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of planning permission. In principle by a. Local planning authority in. England.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State already
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by. Calling in an application. For their. Own determination.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Own determination. So I ask the that noble Baroness the Minister firstly, what's changed? Will the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
changed? Will the. Existing guardrails. And provisions governing the call in process remain intact? Will the. Mechanisms by which call in operates are continue as they do now? And how will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision making? The government should explain precisely what this. Amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law, if it represents a fundamental change to the call in power, the government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate.
If the noble Baroness, the Minister cannot provide that assurance, my Lords, will be.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We will. Be inclined to test the opinion of this House on whether this of this House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power. The government's real focus should have government's real focus should have been elsewhere. My Lords, on proportionality, on addressing the implications of the hillside
**** Possible New Speaker ****
implications of the hillside judgement. Energy should be directed towards. Tackling the. Real blockages in the. Planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
system. my Lords, I turn to amendment 65, which I hope will not be required. Tabled by my Noble friend Lord Lansley, and this amendment would Lansley, and this amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt an up to date local plan and in doing so, to date local plan and in doing so, to regain control over the grant of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. And this raises an important point in my law the absence of up to date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration inconsistency and local frustration in the planning system.
The government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due issues this amendment raises due regard and set out a clear detail of how they intend to address the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
concerns it raises. Finally, my Lords, I'm not quite
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sure why my noble friend Baroness Coffey, amendment 87 D is in. This group.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This group. But I think we've heard the feeling of the House on this, and I feeling of the House on this, and I know that it is an issue of which my noble friends feels passionate noble friends feels passionate about. And quite rightly, it is an important issue. The governments important issue. The governments have given on one to communities. On one hand, their community assets or one hand, their community assets or enabled them to take them over, on the other hand with their are not protected from being lost.
So, my protected from being lost. So, my Lords, I think this is an important issue for the minister and I look forward to a response that is very positive on this especially positive on this especially important amendment. My Lords. Well, I hear the strength feeling in the
17:43
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)
I hear the strength feeling in the House about this amendment. It might be helpful if I set out in a bit more detail the way that the section 31 direction works, and it's important to note that a section 31 direction allows time for the Secretary of State to consider whether to exercise Colin Powers. It's a it's exactly what it says on the tin. It's a holding direction to enable that process to go through. In response to the noble Lord Fuller, the use of holding directions helped to prevent exactly the circumstances.
The noble Lords described. By restricting the issue of a decision on a planning application, whether it be to grant or to refuse to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, helps to prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I've dealt with a number of these call ins on applications since I became a minister. Every time we look at a code, an application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call in of a local application.
So I hope it would be helpful for me to just very quickly go through those. And I would say that compliance with the local development plan is not the question here. The question is whether the Secretary of State will use the cooling powers, and they will only use them if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. And such cases may include, for example, those which, in his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion, may conflict with national policies. I'm confused. The minister
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm confused. The minister referred to section 31 directions, but surely we're talking about section 74 directions. Section 31 is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
section 74 directions. Section 31 is authorities. My apologies. I got my numbers
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My apologies. I got my numbers mixed up there. I meant the this is the call in power which I'm talking the call in power which I'm talking about. So whether those whether the cases might conflict with national policies on important matters may policies on important matters may have significant long term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a needs across a wider area than a single local authority could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality could give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy, raise national controversy, raise significant architectural and urban design issues, or may involve the interests of national security or of foreign governments.
However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits, and in response to the noble Lord banner, this amendment will not change the procedures for dealing with cold in applications. If the government intended to change these, it would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
indeed inform the House. I appreciate this amendment wouldn't change the procedures, but. The question I was seeking government's clarification on is will the government commit not to diluting the policy commitment that the right to be heard in a call in a process is exercised. Through the rigorous public inquiry process, which allows for public participation rather than the lesser process of hearing? So will the government commit not to diluting that policy? A requirement for an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
inquiry? I thank the noble Lords for that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Lords for that clarification. I would say that, of clarification. I would say that, of course, we keep the procedures under review in order to ensure that they are fit for purpose, but it's very important that we would we would inform the House in the proper way if we were to make any procedural if we were to make any procedural changes in regard of the issues that he's raising. Turning now to he's raising. Turning now to amendment 65, which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as an amendment to Government Amendment 64, it does seek to incentivise local planning authorities getting up to date local plans in place and up to date local plans in place and allow them to determine applications subject to a holding direction, where an up to date plan is in place where an up to date plan is in place and the proposal accords with this plan, I want to assure the noble Lord that we do appreciate the sentiment behind his amendment.
We sentiment behind his amendment. We too want to ensure, as I've often said, that local planning authorities make positive decisions authorities make positive decisions and grant planning permission for development, which is in accordance with up to date local plans. However, we're not convinced that the particular amendment is necessary. Under our amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to restrict refusal of planning permission or permission in principle, where the Secretary of State has also restricted the local planning authority from approving the application, they will be free to reconsider the application and grant it if they wish.
And we believe this addresses the intent of the noble Lords amendment. Turning to amendment 87, which has been tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Coffee, this amends secondary legislation to an Act Government Amendment 64. I want to assure the noble Baroness that this amendment is not needed, as we will bring forward necessary changes to secondary legislation. Shortly following Royal Assent of the Bill. I turn now to amendment 87 D tabled by the noble Baroness Coffey. This amendment seeks to remove assets of community value from permitted development right, which grants planning permission for the demolition of certain buildings.
I'm not responsible for the grouping of amendment, so I understand her her issue around where this has been grouped, but we will debate it as it's in the group before us. I very much appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, and I share the noble Baronesses desire to ensure that local communities don't lose the community assets which are so important to them. And I think I've relayed my story before of a House that we had. We don't have many old houses in our town because it's a new town by its very nature, and we had a beautiful old farmhouse in my own ward of Simon's Green, which we an application came in for that.
We tried very hard to get the property listed before the application was considered. Unfortunately, the inside of the property had been amended and so much work had been done into the internal of the property that we couldn't get a listing for the property. And unfortunately, it was it was sadly demolished. So the reason I'm saying that is because there are a number of routes that local communities can take to protect properties, which I'll, I'll come on to in a minute. It's already the case that the demolition permitted development, right? Excludes many types of buildings which are particularly valued by local communities.
And we know how important these buildings are. And I think members across the House have stated this both this afternoon and in previous debates. Pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and many other particular issues of local value. Local planning authorities, as I have stated before, and I was reminded by the noble Earl framework that they can use article four directions to remove permitted development rights in their area where it's appropriate to do so. And while I note the comments of the noble Lord Freyberg about article four and the sometimes complexities of dealing with that, it is possible for local authorities to apply for these in advance.
And also there's another route which local authorities can go down, which is to set up a register of buildings of local community interest, which, while it doesn't carry the weight of statutory protection that article four does, it does provide a kind of checklist for both communities and planners for buildings which cannot be listed against which they can be checked. Should propose development come forward. So we believe that the current approach is the right one. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep permitted development under review and this and other matters related to that are always under review.
With these assurances, I would kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and I move the government's amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I think we're debating at the
The noble Lords described. By restricting the issue of a decision on a planning application, whether it be to grant or to refuse to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, helps to prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I've dealt with a number of these call ins on applications since I became a minister. Every time we look at a code, an application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call in of a local application.
So I hope it would be helpful for me to just very quickly go through those. And I would say that compliance with the local development plan is not the question here. The question is whether the Secretary of State will use the cooling powers, and they will only use them if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. And such cases may include, for example, those which, in his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion, may conflict with national policies. I'm confused. The minister
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm confused. The minister referred to section 31 directions, but surely we're talking about section 74 directions. Section 31 is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
section 74 directions. Section 31 is authorities. My apologies. I got my numbers
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My apologies. I got my numbers mixed up there. I meant the this is the call in power which I'm talking the call in power which I'm talking about. So whether those whether the cases might conflict with national policies on important matters may policies on important matters may have significant long term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a needs across a wider area than a single local authority could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality could give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy, raise national controversy, raise significant architectural and urban design issues, or may involve the interests of national security or of foreign governments.
However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits, and in response to the noble Lord banner, this amendment will not change the procedures for dealing with cold in applications. If the government intended to change these, it would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
indeed inform the House. I appreciate this amendment wouldn't change the procedures, but. The question I was seeking government's clarification on is will the government commit not to diluting the policy commitment that the right to be heard in a call in a process is exercised. Through the rigorous public inquiry process, which allows for public participation rather than the lesser process of hearing? So will the government commit not to diluting that policy? A requirement for an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
inquiry? I thank the noble Lords for that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Lords for that clarification. I would say that, of clarification. I would say that, of course, we keep the procedures under review in order to ensure that they are fit for purpose, but it's very important that we would we would inform the House in the proper way if we were to make any procedural if we were to make any procedural changes in regard of the issues that he's raising. Turning now to he's raising. Turning now to amendment 65, which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as an amendment to Government Amendment 64, it does seek to incentivise local planning authorities getting up to date local plans in place and up to date local plans in place and allow them to determine applications subject to a holding direction, where an up to date plan is in place where an up to date plan is in place and the proposal accords with this plan, I want to assure the noble Lord that we do appreciate the sentiment behind his amendment.
We sentiment behind his amendment. We too want to ensure, as I've often said, that local planning authorities make positive decisions authorities make positive decisions and grant planning permission for development, which is in accordance with up to date local plans. However, we're not convinced that the particular amendment is necessary. Under our amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to restrict refusal of planning permission or permission in principle, where the Secretary of State has also restricted the local planning authority from approving the application, they will be free to reconsider the application and grant it if they wish.
And we believe this addresses the intent of the noble Lords amendment. Turning to amendment 87, which has been tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Coffee, this amends secondary legislation to an Act Government Amendment 64. I want to assure the noble Baroness that this amendment is not needed, as we will bring forward necessary changes to secondary legislation. Shortly following Royal Assent of the Bill. I turn now to amendment 87 D tabled by the noble Baroness Coffey. This amendment seeks to remove assets of community value from permitted development right, which grants planning permission for the demolition of certain buildings.
I'm not responsible for the grouping of amendment, so I understand her her issue around where this has been grouped, but we will debate it as it's in the group before us. I very much appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, and I share the noble Baronesses desire to ensure that local communities don't lose the community assets which are so important to them. And I think I've relayed my story before of a House that we had. We don't have many old houses in our town because it's a new town by its very nature, and we had a beautiful old farmhouse in my own ward of Simon's Green, which we an application came in for that.
We tried very hard to get the property listed before the application was considered. Unfortunately, the inside of the property had been amended and so much work had been done into the internal of the property that we couldn't get a listing for the property. And unfortunately, it was it was sadly demolished. So the reason I'm saying that is because there are a number of routes that local communities can take to protect properties, which I'll, I'll come on to in a minute. It's already the case that the demolition permitted development, right? Excludes many types of buildings which are particularly valued by local communities.
And we know how important these buildings are. And I think members across the House have stated this both this afternoon and in previous debates. Pubs, concert halls, theatres, live music venues and many other particular issues of local value. Local planning authorities, as I have stated before, and I was reminded by the noble Earl framework that they can use article four directions to remove permitted development rights in their area where it's appropriate to do so. And while I note the comments of the noble Lord Freyberg about article four and the sometimes complexities of dealing with that, it is possible for local authorities to apply for these in advance.
And also there's another route which local authorities can go down, which is to set up a register of buildings of local community interest, which, while it doesn't carry the weight of statutory protection that article four does, it does provide a kind of checklist for both communities and planners for buildings which cannot be listed against which they can be checked. Should propose development come forward. So we believe that the current approach is the right one. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep permitted development under review and this and other matters related to that are always under review.
With these assurances, I would kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and I move the government's amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I think we're debating at the
17:51
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
moment amendment 65, which I moved. I think the debate has illustrated that this is effectively the debate we ought to have had at committee. And because most of us I think there's two sets, one, one set of people who I count myself amongst them, can't understand what it is the government is trying to achieve and why the amendment is necessary. And another set of people are saying it gives the government powers to do things that might be objectionable. Actually, of course, the government has all those powers.
If the government really wanted, for example, to grant planning permission to all data centres, they can issue guidance that purpose. They could issue national development management policies for which they have powers. The question is, I keep coming back to the thing I really started from is what is this trying to achieve? And calling it an anomaly seems to me to be completely misleading. The point is, if you put it alongside a holding direction to stop the grant of planning permission, what that achieves is it stops a local authority giving planning permission because once given, you can't take it away.
Having a holding direction to stop the refusal of planning permission simply stops the local authority saying no. And then the applicant has the opportunity for appeal. The applicant has the opportunity for a further application. The applicant has many roots, and the Secretary of State has many routes to deal with it. I'm afraid I cannot see the benefit, so it just seems to me the honourable lady was kind enough to say that my amendment wasn't necessary because she wants to do the things that my amendment calls for, so that's fine.
So I don't need to proceed with my amendment. So I will, if I may beg, leave to withdraw my amendment in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expectation that we focus then on amendment 64 itself. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. As archaeologist present. Amendment 65 be withdrawn. It is by Amendment 65 be withdrawn. It is by league withdrawn. Does noble Baroness wish to speak again to amend the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
64 to which we are now written? This amendment has been moved. So the. Question I'm going. To put.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is that amendment. 64 be agreed. To as. Many. As Of that opinion, say 'content'
If the government really wanted, for example, to grant planning permission to all data centres, they can issue guidance that purpose. They could issue national development management policies for which they have powers. The question is, I keep coming back to the thing I really started from is what is this trying to achieve? And calling it an anomaly seems to me to be completely misleading. The point is, if you put it alongside a holding direction to stop the grant of planning permission, what that achieves is it stops a local authority giving planning permission because once given, you can't take it away.
Having a holding direction to stop the refusal of planning permission simply stops the local authority saying no. And then the applicant has the opportunity for appeal. The applicant has the opportunity for a further application. The applicant has many roots, and the Secretary of State has many routes to deal with it. I'm afraid I cannot see the benefit, so it just seems to me the honourable lady was kind enough to say that my amendment wasn't necessary because she wants to do the things that my amendment calls for, so that's fine.
So I don't need to proceed with my amendment. So I will, if I may beg, leave to withdraw my amendment in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expectation that we focus then on amendment 64 itself. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. As archaeologist present. Amendment 65 be withdrawn. It is by Amendment 65 be withdrawn. It is by league withdrawn. Does noble Baroness wish to speak again to amend the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
64 to which we are now written? This amendment has been moved. So the. Question I'm going. To put.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is that amendment. 64 be agreed. To as. Many. As Of that opinion, say 'content'
17:54
Division
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As Of that opinion, say 'content' and to the contrary, not content? No. The question. Would be decided. By division. I will inform.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will inform. The. House when.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We. Are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All. Right. I'm sorry. I. I. All. Right. I'm sorry. I. I. Got By. By. I I don't. I don't. Think. I don't. Think. This I don't. Think. This is. I don't. Think. This is. Think. I don't. Think. This is. Think. You I don't. Think. This is. Think. You. I don't.
Think. This is. Think. You. By By the By the way, By the way, the By the way, the question By the way, the question is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of that provincial content. It's a country not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
country not content. Not content intensive. Go to the right by the bar. They're not contents. To the left,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh Oh yeah, Oh yeah, I. I I mean. I I think. Just. Just. Oh. Just. Oh. Just.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They They have They have voted They have voted contents They have voted contents 163, They have voted contents 163, not contents 236. Therefore the not Baroness Baroness Tyler Baroness Tyler Stevenage Baroness Tyler Stevenage amendment Baroness Tyler Stevenage amendment 66 6768. Formally question is that amendment 66 6768 be agreed to as many of that opinion, say 'content' contrary not content the contents contrary not content the contents have it now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment amendments beginning with amendment 69 after clause 51, amendment 69.
What? Maria.
Division
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As Of that opinion, say 'content' and to the contrary, not content? No. The question. Would be decided. By division. I will inform.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will inform. The. House when.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We. Are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All. Right. I'm sorry. I. I. All. Right. I'm sorry. I. I. Got By. By. I I don't. I don't. Think. I don't. Think. This I don't. Think. This is. I don't. Think. This is. Think. I don't. Think. This is. Think. You I don't. Think. This is. Think. You. I don't.
Think. This is. Think. You. By By the By the way, By the way, the By the way, the question By the way, the question is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of that provincial content. It's a country not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
country not content. Not content intensive. Go to the right by the bar. They're not contents. To the left,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh Oh yeah, Oh yeah, I. I I mean. I I think. Just. Just. Oh. Just. Oh. Just.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They They have They have voted They have voted contents They have voted contents 163, They have voted contents 163, not contents 236. Therefore the not Baroness Baroness Tyler Baroness Tyler Stevenage Baroness Tyler Stevenage amendment Baroness Tyler Stevenage amendment 66 6768. Formally question is that amendment 66 6768 be agreed to as many of that opinion, say 'content' contrary not content the contents contrary not content the contents have it now come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment amendments beginning with amendment 69 after clause 51, amendment 69.
What? Maria.
18:06
Amdt 67
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What? Maria. Sorry, 67 one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I've got rid agreed of. I thought we'd agreed them formally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
En bloc amendment 67 formally. In the. Group was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Supposed to be debating.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Group ten. Yeah. Sorry. my Lords I beg to move amendments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords I beg to move amendments G 67 and G 261. The government has listened very carefully to the persuasive arguments made by the noble Lord Lord banner during committee about about unfairness that occurs when planning
Amdt 67
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What? Maria. Sorry, 67 one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I've got rid agreed of. I thought we'd agreed them formally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
En bloc amendment 67 formally. In the. Group was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Supposed to be debating.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Group ten. Yeah. Sorry. my Lords I beg to move amendments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords I beg to move amendments G 67 and G 261. The government has listened very carefully to the persuasive arguments made by the noble Lord Lord banner during committee about about unfairness that occurs when planning
18:06
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)
that occurs when planning permissions lapse simply because they are caught up in lengthy judicial or statutory review proceedings. We agree that the current provisions are too limited and do not reflect the realities of modern litigation. At present, section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides only a single one year extension when proceedings have begun to challenge a grant of permission or consent. This is narrow in scope. It doesn't apply to outline permissions or reserved matters approvals, and it does not cater for cases that progress through the appellate courts.
In practice, this means that permissions can expire during prolonged legal challenges, forcing applicants to reapply and causing unnecessary cost and delay. Our amendment introduces a more comprehensive and practical and predictable approach, where a court grants permission to bring judicial review or statutory challenge proceedings. The commencement period will be extended by one year. If the case proceeds to the Court of Appeal, there will be a further one year extension, and if it reaches the Supreme Court, an additional two years will be added.
These provisions will apply to all types of planning permissions and listed building consents, including outline permissions and reserved matters approvals. They will also apply to existing permissions subject to legal proceedings. Excuse me. This approach provides clarity and certainty for applicants and developers. It avoids permissions expiring due to delays entirely outside their control, reducing the need for costly and time consuming repeat applications. It also ensures that the planning system remains fair and proportionate, supporting investment and delivery of development while respecting the judicial process.
We did consider the stop the clock proposal put forward by the noble Lord banner. While we agreed with the principle, that approach would have required complex calculations based on the start and end dates of proceedings, creating irregular and unpredictable time frames, our tiered system offers a simpler, more transparent solution that achieves the same objective without introducing administrative complexity. This amendment strengthens the bill's overall purpose to streamline planning processes and remove unnecessary barriers to development. It balances the right to challenge decisions with the imperative to deliver homes and infrastructure efficiently.
For these reasons, I hope the House will support this amendment and can I thank the noble Lord banner for all the meetings we've had to discuss this and face very constructive approach to this matter. I'll move on now to no. I'll come to the other amendments when they've been moved, if that's OK, and I move the government amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Proposed after clause 51, insert the new clause as, as as as on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. Not. my Lords, I wish to speak to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I wish to speak to amendments 77, 78 and 79, which are a group of amendments that propose
In practice, this means that permissions can expire during prolonged legal challenges, forcing applicants to reapply and causing unnecessary cost and delay. Our amendment introduces a more comprehensive and practical and predictable approach, where a court grants permission to bring judicial review or statutory challenge proceedings. The commencement period will be extended by one year. If the case proceeds to the Court of Appeal, there will be a further one year extension, and if it reaches the Supreme Court, an additional two years will be added.
These provisions will apply to all types of planning permissions and listed building consents, including outline permissions and reserved matters approvals. They will also apply to existing permissions subject to legal proceedings. Excuse me. This approach provides clarity and certainty for applicants and developers. It avoids permissions expiring due to delays entirely outside their control, reducing the need for costly and time consuming repeat applications. It also ensures that the planning system remains fair and proportionate, supporting investment and delivery of development while respecting the judicial process.
We did consider the stop the clock proposal put forward by the noble Lord banner. While we agreed with the principle, that approach would have required complex calculations based on the start and end dates of proceedings, creating irregular and unpredictable time frames, our tiered system offers a simpler, more transparent solution that achieves the same objective without introducing administrative complexity. This amendment strengthens the bill's overall purpose to streamline planning processes and remove unnecessary barriers to development. It balances the right to challenge decisions with the imperative to deliver homes and infrastructure efficiently.
For these reasons, I hope the House will support this amendment and can I thank the noble Lord banner for all the meetings we've had to discuss this and face very constructive approach to this matter. I'll move on now to no. I'll come to the other amendments when they've been moved, if that's OK, and I move the government amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Proposed after clause 51, insert the new clause as, as as as on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. Not. my Lords, I wish to speak to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I wish to speak to amendments 77, 78 and 79, which are a group of amendments that propose
18:10
Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
-
-
Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
a group of amendments that propose to limit applications for judicial reviews that are without merit. It's proposed that they may be blocked by a judgement of the High Court. The amendments have been tabled by Lord hunt and by myself. But in the likely absence of Lord hunt, I undertook to speak in support of them on Monday, which was a day one of the report stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I propose amendment 83. This describes a means of circumventing lengthy and costly, costly judicial reviews that can affect infrastructure projects of national significance by giving the associated.
Development Consent Orders, or DCS, the status of Acts of Parliament, which would be legally incontestable. There was no intention in that amendment to curtail meaningful processes of scrutiny and of consultation. The purpose was to protect the products from costly and dilatory legal reviews initiated by tendentious factions, who are liable to be promoting their own interests at the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expense of those of the wider community, or at the expense of the. National interest.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
National interest. In recent years, the planning system has become increasingly sclerotic. The time that it takes, sclerotic. The time that it takes, on average, to obtain planning permission for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. A judicial review with a minor or
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A judicial review with a minor or frivolous justification may occasion a resubmission of an application for a resubmission of an application for development order. The revised application might become subject in turn, to a further judicial review, and despite the eventual dismissal of these appeals, the legal process of these appeals, the legal process can be so costly, and they may cause such delays that the infrastructure such delays that the infrastructure project goes into abeyance. Then the contestants have effectively won their case.
Despite its lack of their case. Despite its lack of legal merit. I should say that I am not averse in principle to judicial not averse in principle to judicial reviews. Many of them do have merits. However, a very large and an increasing number of requests for increasing number of requests for judicial reviews arising nowadays and hearings are granted in 75% of and hearings are granted in 75% of the cases. They form a lengthy queue and they pre-empt the legal resources. The fashion for judicial reviews may have been greatly assimilated by the experience of the Archway Road protests, which took place over a period of 20 years from the early 1970s to the 1990s.
These protests were prompted by a proposal to develop a motorway dual carriageway in archway, where the A1 trunk road effectively begins. It was said that the purpose of the scheme was to expedite the escape from the centre of London of politicians and civil servants, senior civil servants and a body of secretaries in the case of a threat of a nuclear missile strike, they were to be conveyed to a secret nuclear bunker in Calverton hatch in Essex, where they might continue to govern the country while the rest of us perished.
It was said that they might have the task of regenerating the population that had been obliterated. The road scheme would have destroyed 170 houses, for the loss of which the residents have been given, would have been given a very legal, meagre negar compensation. It was said that they were to have been given no more compensation than would have enabled them to purchase a one bedroom flat in Tottenham Marshes. A question has to be asked of whether compensation tends nowadays to be more generous.
Does its inadequacy continue to provide an incentive to resist infrastructure developments and resort to judicial procedures to block them? I do apologise for delay. Anyway. This unpopular scheme has had a long legacy. It has established a precedent for judicial reviews that has been followed ever since, for good and for bad reasons. Amendment 83 did not receive favour from the government and in withdrawing it, I said that I was somewhat disappointed by their response because we are facing a crisis caused by the wilful delay and obstruction of virtually every important infrastructure project.
There is nothing in the bill or forthcoming from the government that will address the crisis adequately. We are left with nothing more than the present group of amendments which propose, in various circumstances, pertaining to the Town and Country Planning Act for the listed Buildings and Conservation Act and the Hazardous Substances That Substances Act, that the High Court may deem an appeal to be unworthy of further consideration, and I believe that the course of people have already this prerogative.
So there may be very little substance in these amendments. But but nevertheless
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they serve to highlight the problem. 104. And.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And. The government amendments 67 and 261, to which would extend. The. Time for commencing a planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Time for commencing a planning Commission, which is subject to judicial review. And I start by feelings.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
feelings. Are entirely reciprocated. I'm very. Grateful to the government for the continuous.
Development Consent Orders, or DCS, the status of Acts of Parliament, which would be legally incontestable. There was no intention in that amendment to curtail meaningful processes of scrutiny and of consultation. The purpose was to protect the products from costly and dilatory legal reviews initiated by tendentious factions, who are liable to be promoting their own interests at the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expense of those of the wider community, or at the expense of the. National interest.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
National interest. In recent years, the planning system has become increasingly sclerotic. The time that it takes, sclerotic. The time that it takes, on average, to obtain planning permission for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. A judicial review with a minor or
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A judicial review with a minor or frivolous justification may occasion a resubmission of an application for a resubmission of an application for development order. The revised application might become subject in turn, to a further judicial review, and despite the eventual dismissal of these appeals, the legal process of these appeals, the legal process can be so costly, and they may cause such delays that the infrastructure such delays that the infrastructure project goes into abeyance. Then the contestants have effectively won their case.
Despite its lack of their case. Despite its lack of legal merit. I should say that I am not averse in principle to judicial not averse in principle to judicial reviews. Many of them do have merits. However, a very large and an increasing number of requests for increasing number of requests for judicial reviews arising nowadays and hearings are granted in 75% of and hearings are granted in 75% of the cases. They form a lengthy queue and they pre-empt the legal resources. The fashion for judicial reviews may have been greatly assimilated by the experience of the Archway Road protests, which took place over a period of 20 years from the early 1970s to the 1990s.
These protests were prompted by a proposal to develop a motorway dual carriageway in archway, where the A1 trunk road effectively begins. It was said that the purpose of the scheme was to expedite the escape from the centre of London of politicians and civil servants, senior civil servants and a body of secretaries in the case of a threat of a nuclear missile strike, they were to be conveyed to a secret nuclear bunker in Calverton hatch in Essex, where they might continue to govern the country while the rest of us perished.
It was said that they might have the task of regenerating the population that had been obliterated. The road scheme would have destroyed 170 houses, for the loss of which the residents have been given, would have been given a very legal, meagre negar compensation. It was said that they were to have been given no more compensation than would have enabled them to purchase a one bedroom flat in Tottenham Marshes. A question has to be asked of whether compensation tends nowadays to be more generous.
Does its inadequacy continue to provide an incentive to resist infrastructure developments and resort to judicial procedures to block them? I do apologise for delay. Anyway. This unpopular scheme has had a long legacy. It has established a precedent for judicial reviews that has been followed ever since, for good and for bad reasons. Amendment 83 did not receive favour from the government and in withdrawing it, I said that I was somewhat disappointed by their response because we are facing a crisis caused by the wilful delay and obstruction of virtually every important infrastructure project.
There is nothing in the bill or forthcoming from the government that will address the crisis adequately. We are left with nothing more than the present group of amendments which propose, in various circumstances, pertaining to the Town and Country Planning Act for the listed Buildings and Conservation Act and the Hazardous Substances That Substances Act, that the High Court may deem an appeal to be unworthy of further consideration, and I believe that the course of people have already this prerogative.
So there may be very little substance in these amendments. But but nevertheless
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they serve to highlight the problem. 104. And.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And. The government amendments 67 and 261, to which would extend. The. Time for commencing a planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Time for commencing a planning Commission, which is subject to judicial review. And I start by feelings.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
feelings. Are entirely reciprocated. I'm very. Grateful to the government for the continuous.
18:15
Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Engagement on this issue over quite a long period recently, and the government's amendments, whilst the government's amendments, whilst differently worded to my, we've had essentially the same effect and they would make a significant difference as my amendment to. Mitigating the prejudice to developers whose planning permission subject to challenge and indeed land promoters and landowners to and also reducing the incentive on claimants to bring and perpetuate meritless challenges. So I support the government amendments. I don't need to press mine.
What I do say is that this amendment was not the most impactful. Of my package of amendments that the planning world is watching what the government will do on hillside, that's going to be debated next week. And I do reiterate my encouragement. They, the minister, the colleagues, to roll out the same. Level of engagement as we've had and cooperation in relation to stop the clock for JR to the Hillside Amendment, because that's the one that will really make a massive, massive difference in the interest of time.
I don't want to say very much about the other amendments in relation to total without merit judicial reviews for nonsense judicial review other than this, that the sentiment and principle of those amendments I support, as I said at committee stage, the difficulty I have with it, on reflection, is that given that to be workable and constitutionally appropriate, the a striking out of any right of appeal, particularly that merit cases, would need a hearing. And the problem with extending to all planning judicial reviews is it would eat up the very limited bandwidth.
The planning court. The planning court simply doesn't have the resources to deal with the proliferation of hearings that applying the clause 12 procedure to all planning judicial reviews, as opposed to the necessary judicial reviews, which are much, much narrower. There's only been about 49 judicial reviews ever, whereas for in the planning context, it's a lot greater. So reluctantly, I don't think those amendments are workable at present stage. But if there were to be a new planning bill in future, it'd be something that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should be looked at. my Lords, I rise very briefly with a simple question about the
Lord Banner (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Engagement on this issue over quite a long period recently, and the government's amendments, whilst the government's amendments, whilst differently worded to my, we've had essentially the same effect and they would make a significant difference as my amendment to. Mitigating the prejudice to developers whose planning permission subject to challenge and indeed land promoters and landowners to and also reducing the incentive on claimants to bring and perpetuate meritless challenges. So I support the government amendments. I don't need to press mine.
What I do say is that this amendment was not the most impactful. Of my package of amendments that the planning world is watching what the government will do on hillside, that's going to be debated next week. And I do reiterate my encouragement. They, the minister, the colleagues, to roll out the same. Level of engagement as we've had and cooperation in relation to stop the clock for JR to the Hillside Amendment, because that's the one that will really make a massive, massive difference in the interest of time.
I don't want to say very much about the other amendments in relation to total without merit judicial reviews for nonsense judicial review other than this, that the sentiment and principle of those amendments I support, as I said at committee stage, the difficulty I have with it, on reflection, is that given that to be workable and constitutionally appropriate, the a striking out of any right of appeal, particularly that merit cases, would need a hearing. And the problem with extending to all planning judicial reviews is it would eat up the very limited bandwidth.
The planning court. The planning court simply doesn't have the resources to deal with the proliferation of hearings that applying the clause 12 procedure to all planning judicial reviews, as opposed to the necessary judicial reviews, which are much, much narrower. There's only been about 49 judicial reviews ever, whereas for in the planning context, it's a lot greater. So reluctantly, I don't think those amendments are workable at present stage. But if there were to be a new planning bill in future, it'd be something that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should be looked at. my Lords, I rise very briefly with a simple question about the
18:17
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
with a simple question about the government amendment 67, which is, of course, allowing an extension of time to implement a planning permission or a listed building consent, where there's been a legal challenge. And this returns to the ecological surveys which got such discussion in the group before lunch. Ecological surveys, of course, are taken at a particular point in time. And typically in this era of the climate emergency, species are moving, species appear and disappear. How is the government planning to deal with the fact that the ecological survey may become profoundly out of date, and so the grounds on which the decision was made initially? If this goes on for a long period, may need to be redone, is there some plan to deal
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with that issue? my Lords, I am going to point out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I am going to point out that this is yet another late in the day government amendment. And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with that issue? my Lords, I am going to point out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I am going to point out that this is yet another late in the day government amendment. And
18:18
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
however the noble Baroness and Minister will be. Please know that this time I'm I'm I'm in agreement with the amendment that is proposed with the amendment that is proposed at 67. So extended the time limits from implementing a planning consent that has been a legal challenge. Does seem to me to be right and fair. And. I, I didn't quite catch whether the noble Baroness the ministers did explain the full extent of it, but I'm assuming what it means is that for general applications that are subject to a judicial or statutory review, it'll be a one year extension and a further year if it goes to the Court of Appeal and then a further two years if it goes to the Supreme Court.
Yes. So I mean, that that's right and fair. That's a balanced approach, which is one of my sort of ways of judging things. Is it right? Is it fair, is it balanced. And I think that is fair to the applicants. And. So with, with the, the, the nod that I had from the no embarrassments, I will agree with the amendment 67 and the noble Lord banner, whose amendment 104 was very similar and agreed to that as well. The other amendments in this group, 77, 78 and 79 and the name of the Lord Hunt unmoved by the Viscount Hanworth.
They do make serious changes, I think, to the ability of citizens to use law. They'll go to no where. They feel that due process has failed them, and restricting those rights doesn't feel to be acceptable without further and full consideration by those experts in these matters, which isn't me. So with those comments, I look forward to what the Baroness McGregor-Smith has to say on these these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments. my Lords I rise to speak. To amendment. One four, tabled. By my. Noble friend Lord.
Yes. So I mean, that that's right and fair. That's a balanced approach, which is one of my sort of ways of judging things. Is it right? Is it fair, is it balanced. And I think that is fair to the applicants. And. So with, with the, the, the nod that I had from the no embarrassments, I will agree with the amendment 67 and the noble Lord banner, whose amendment 104 was very similar and agreed to that as well. The other amendments in this group, 77, 78 and 79 and the name of the Lord Hunt unmoved by the Viscount Hanworth.
They do make serious changes, I think, to the ability of citizens to use law. They'll go to no where. They feel that due process has failed them, and restricting those rights doesn't feel to be acceptable without further and full consideration by those experts in these matters, which isn't me. So with those comments, I look forward to what the Baroness McGregor-Smith has to say on these these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments. my Lords I rise to speak. To amendment. One four, tabled. By my. Noble friend Lord.
18:21
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble friend Lord. Banner to the government. Amendment 261. We are grateful
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 261. We are grateful for the government's engagement with my noble friend on this issue, and my noble friend on this issue, and this would prevent a planning Commission. From timing out as a result of protracted, protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews as we have, often outlast the three year. Planning deadline, and that leaves permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications, and discouraging serious investment.
Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste, and deter vexatious claims. And it carries no real downside for the government. The government says they agree with the policy intention. Indeed, we welcome the government's moved move to address the concerns held on these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
benches and for working with my. Noble friend Lord Warner. On these issues. This is a question of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is a question of. Proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted, permissions should not be undone by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
permissions should not be undone by process rather than by merit. Far from slowing down. Planning. This change would help speed it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This change would help speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving investors applications, giving investors confidence and allowing us to get on with building in the right places. Finally, I wish to speak to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Finally, I wish to speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friend, not. My noble friend. Beg your pardon. By the noble Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord hunt. Although he. Is a. Friend. my Lords. The ideas, the intentions and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts process behind these amendments are good ones built on a sound principle. However, we do not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sound principle. However, we do not practical. The proposed. Process would involve going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Process would involve going straight to a hearing, and in our view, the courts simply would not have the necessary bandwidth, which.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the purpose. Of his amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble friend Lord. Banner to the government. Amendment 261. We are grateful
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 261. We are grateful for the government's engagement with my noble friend on this issue, and my noble friend on this issue, and this would prevent a planning Commission. From timing out as a result of protracted, protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews as we have, often outlast the three year. Planning deadline, and that leaves permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications, and discouraging serious investment.
Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste, and deter vexatious claims. And it carries no real downside for the government. The government says they agree with the policy intention. Indeed, we welcome the government's moved move to address the concerns held on these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
benches and for working with my. Noble friend Lord Warner. On these issues. This is a question of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is a question of. Proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted, permissions should not be undone by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
permissions should not be undone by process rather than by merit. Far from slowing down. Planning. This change would help speed it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This change would help speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving investors applications, giving investors confidence and allowing us to get on with building in the right places. Finally, I wish to speak to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Finally, I wish to speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friend, not. My noble friend. Beg your pardon. By the noble Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord hunt. Although he. Is a. Friend. my Lords. The ideas, the intentions and the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts process behind these amendments are good ones built on a sound principle. However, we do not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sound principle. However, we do not practical. The proposed. Process would involve going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Process would involve going straight to a hearing, and in our view, the courts simply would not have the necessary bandwidth, which.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the purpose. Of his amendments.
18:23
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 Lords, I'm grateful for the support from across the House for the government's amendment, and I'm sorry the noble Lord banner has had to rush off to the Supreme Court. Apparently so, but I'm grateful to him for his support with our amendment. I would just point out to the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock that this this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had at committee stage and with a great deal of extensive engagement with fellow peers to improve the process of judicial review, which we know is been an ongoing issue.
So I hope that reassures her. Thank you. If I may just put on the record that although the noble Lord ban is not here, there is work on going on the hillside issue, as he's very aware, and we do continue to engage with him on that issue. And in terms of the comments by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett, I, I can't answer a question off the top of my head, but I will provide a written answer for her. So I appreciate that.
Two years is quite a long time, and if surveys have been done, they may need to be done again. So I'll come back to her on that issue, if I may. Can I thank my Noble friend Lord Hunt, for tabling amendments 77, 78 and 79, moved by the noble by Lord Tamworth, which seeks to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they're deemed totally without merit. At the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effects of these amendments largely reflects the intention of clause 12, which makes provision specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Under the Planning Act 2008, the measures being taken forward in clause 12 follow a robust, independent review by the noble Lord banner and a subsequent government call for evidence which may clear the case for change in relation to major infrastructure projects. We do not currently have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. Therefore, we will need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of changes made in clause 12 will be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.
As mentioned at committee with regards to amendment 77, which seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court. This is not necessary, as it's already clearly set out in the existing relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. So in light of these points, while I agree with the intent behind the amendments, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would kindly ask that my noble friend withdraw those amendments. To withdraw my amendments. But
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To withdraw my amendments. But but I observe that the government's amendments are occasioned by the very problems that I've been
So I hope that reassures her. Thank you. If I may just put on the record that although the noble Lord ban is not here, there is work on going on the hillside issue, as he's very aware, and we do continue to engage with him on that issue. And in terms of the comments by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett, I, I can't answer a question off the top of my head, but I will provide a written answer for her. So I appreciate that.
Two years is quite a long time, and if surveys have been done, they may need to be done again. So I'll come back to her on that issue, if I may. Can I thank my Noble friend Lord Hunt, for tabling amendments 77, 78 and 79, moved by the noble by Lord Tamworth, which seeks to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they're deemed totally without merit. At the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effects of these amendments largely reflects the intention of clause 12, which makes provision specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Under the Planning Act 2008, the measures being taken forward in clause 12 follow a robust, independent review by the noble Lord banner and a subsequent government call for evidence which may clear the case for change in relation to major infrastructure projects. We do not currently have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. Therefore, we will need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of changes made in clause 12 will be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.
As mentioned at committee with regards to amendment 77, which seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court. This is not necessary, as it's already clearly set out in the existing relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. So in light of these points, while I agree with the intent behind the amendments, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
would kindly ask that my noble friend withdraw those amendments. To withdraw my amendments. But
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To withdraw my amendments. But but I observe that the government's amendments are occasioned by the very problems that I've been
18:26
Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
describing. Oh, sorry. I beg to move. The government amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. The question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of that opinions was a content country, that opinions was a content country, not content. The contents have it. not content. The contents have it. That come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 68.
Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
describing. Oh, sorry. I beg to move. The government amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. The question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of that opinions was a content country, that opinions was a content country, not content. The contents have it. not content. The contents have it. That come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 68.
18:27
AMDT 68
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beginning with amendment 68. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage which. my Lords, there are. Two government amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this group. So I will introduce the government amendments 68 and 262 and respond to the other
AMDT 68
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beginning with amendment 68. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage which. my Lords, there are. Two government amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this group. So I will introduce the government amendments 68 and 262 and respond to the other
18:27
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
68 and 262 and respond to the other two amendments. Noble Lords at the end. Of the this. Debate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords Government amendment 68 and 262. Seek to provide Natural. England with discretion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When considering how best to deal with requests for advice from public authorities relating. To planning applications.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990. Currently, the Natural Environment and Rural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Requires that. Natural England. Must provide advice. To all requests from public
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To all requests from public authorities, regardless of the level of environmental. Opportunities or
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of environmental. Opportunities or environmental risk related to the despite. The town and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Country planning Development. Management Procedure Order of 2015 already setting out a narrower.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
already setting out a narrower. Scope for when. Natural England should. Be consulted. On. Planning applications for town and country planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and country planning. Up casework. This amendment removes this Must
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This amendment removes this Must requirement and provides that Natural England must produce an operational statement, setting out operational statement, setting out how they intend to deal with such requests for advice. In relation to Town and Country Planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Act casework. This approach will avoid Natural. England having. To provide advice to. Routine and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Routine and. Duplicative casework, and. Instead allows them. To. Prioritise higher.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Prioritise higher. Risk and higher opportunity casework. This will help to resolve issues up.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Front. Which will speed decision making and embed. Opportunities for. Nature recovery.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Nature recovery. Within plans and projects, and will allow.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Growth and nature to be delivered together. In parallel, Natural England will continue. To expand.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To expand. Their suite of standing advice, authorities. With.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Easier access to guidance from. The outset. This helps avoid unnecessary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Consultations and ensures that engagement is. Focussed where. Bespoke advice is. Most valuable.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Most valuable. It also brings the requirements. On Natural England in line with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
those on other statutory consultees. Which are not required to provide. Advice to all queries.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Advice to all queries. to. All local. Planning authorities, setting out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning authorities, setting out their aim to focus. Effort on. Higher risk and higher opportunity. Planning casework. This amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning casework. This amendment supports this strategic. Shift which Natural England welcomes. Crucially.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
welcomes. Crucially. This does not. Remove Natural England's advisory
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Remove Natural England's advisory role. But refocuses it from handling large volumes of low risk casework to more strategic engagement that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to more strategic engagement that can deliver greater environmental impact. And this aligns with government. Ambitions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ambitions. As set out in the written ministerial statement by Matthew Penicuik MP in March this year. This Penicuik MP in March this year. This stated a need to reconsider the means of engagement and provision of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
means of engagement and provision of cases. This could be done. Through undertaking more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Through undertaking more effective strategic engagement at both local and strategic level,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reducing the need for comments on. Individual planning. Applications. And this also.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And this also. Corresponds with recommendations. Made by. Dan Corry in his independent
**** Possible New Speaker ****
review into different regulatory landscape. In order to provide. Clarity for local planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Clarity for local planning authorities, the amendment would require Natural England to produce an operational statement which sets an operational statement which sets out how they intend to deal with requests for advice relating to Town and Country Planning Act casework.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and Country Planning Act casework. local. Planning officers. And authorities. How they can expect.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
How they can expect. To receive Natural England advice. This operational statement would be produced in. Consultation would be produced in. Consultation with the Defra. Secretary of State and Natural England will provide further information to local planning authorities on the implementation of this change in due implementation of this change in due course. Natural England plays a vital role in ensuring that environmental impacts are embedded
**** Possible New Speaker ****
into planning. Decisions, and this. Amendment will allow. Them to. Target their input where it is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Target their input where it is needed the most. I trust that noble Lords will agree with this pragmatic amendment and. Will support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will support. This forming part of. The bill. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 51. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. I'm grateful to the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady for. Setting out. The premise on which the amendment she.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment she. seems. To be a little bit out of place.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
68 and 262 and respond to the other two amendments. Noble Lords at the end. Of the this. Debate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords Government amendment 68 and 262. Seek to provide Natural. England with discretion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When considering how best to deal with requests for advice from public authorities relating. To planning applications.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990. Currently, the Natural Environment and Rural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Requires that. Natural England. Must provide advice. To all requests from public
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To all requests from public authorities, regardless of the level of environmental. Opportunities or
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of environmental. Opportunities or environmental risk related to the despite. The town and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Country planning Development. Management Procedure Order of 2015 already setting out a narrower.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
already setting out a narrower. Scope for when. Natural England should. Be consulted. On. Planning applications for town and country planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and country planning. Up casework. This amendment removes this Must
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This amendment removes this Must requirement and provides that Natural England must produce an operational statement, setting out operational statement, setting out how they intend to deal with such requests for advice. In relation to Town and Country Planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Act casework. This approach will avoid Natural. England having. To provide advice to. Routine and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Routine and. Duplicative casework, and. Instead allows them. To. Prioritise higher.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Prioritise higher. Risk and higher opportunity casework. This will help to resolve issues up.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Front. Which will speed decision making and embed. Opportunities for. Nature recovery.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Nature recovery. Within plans and projects, and will allow.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Growth and nature to be delivered together. In parallel, Natural England will continue. To expand.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To expand. Their suite of standing advice, authorities. With.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Easier access to guidance from. The outset. This helps avoid unnecessary.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Consultations and ensures that engagement is. Focussed where. Bespoke advice is. Most valuable.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Most valuable. It also brings the requirements. On Natural England in line with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
those on other statutory consultees. Which are not required to provide. Advice to all queries.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Advice to all queries. to. All local. Planning authorities, setting out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning authorities, setting out their aim to focus. Effort on. Higher risk and higher opportunity. Planning casework. This amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning casework. This amendment supports this strategic. Shift which Natural England welcomes. Crucially.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
welcomes. Crucially. This does not. Remove Natural England's advisory
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Remove Natural England's advisory role. But refocuses it from handling large volumes of low risk casework to more strategic engagement that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to more strategic engagement that can deliver greater environmental impact. And this aligns with government. Ambitions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ambitions. As set out in the written ministerial statement by Matthew Penicuik MP in March this year. This Penicuik MP in March this year. This stated a need to reconsider the means of engagement and provision of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
means of engagement and provision of cases. This could be done. Through undertaking more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Through undertaking more effective strategic engagement at both local and strategic level,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reducing the need for comments on. Individual planning. Applications. And this also.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And this also. Corresponds with recommendations. Made by. Dan Corry in his independent
**** Possible New Speaker ****
review into different regulatory landscape. In order to provide. Clarity for local planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Clarity for local planning authorities, the amendment would require Natural England to produce an operational statement which sets an operational statement which sets out how they intend to deal with requests for advice relating to Town and Country Planning Act casework.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and Country Planning Act casework. local. Planning officers. And authorities. How they can expect.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
How they can expect. To receive Natural England advice. This operational statement would be produced in. Consultation would be produced in. Consultation with the Defra. Secretary of State and Natural England will provide further information to local planning authorities on the implementation of this change in due implementation of this change in due course. Natural England plays a vital role in ensuring that environmental impacts are embedded
**** Possible New Speaker ****
into planning. Decisions, and this. Amendment will allow. Them to. Target their input where it is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Target their input where it is needed the most. I trust that noble Lords will agree with this pragmatic amendment and. Will support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will support. This forming part of. The bill. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 51. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. I'm grateful to the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady for. Setting out. The premise on which the amendment she.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment she. seems. To be a little bit out of place.
18:31
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To be a little bit out of place. I should actually have asked for it to pause and be. Taken with the rest of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taken with the rest of. Part three, because my amendment seeks to amend article 86 in part three. To insist that the power to three. To insist that the power to designate a person to exercise functions under this act.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Should indeed be a. Public body. Just briefly, what clause 83.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just briefly, what clause 83. Seeks to. Achieve is to. Provide the power to acquire. Land. Compulsorily.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Compulsorily. Including new. Rights over land to. Natural England, subject. To the authorisation.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the authorisation. Of the Secretary of State, and in subsection two, that the power can only be exercised if the land is only be exercised if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the EDP. Now, this came as a surprise. To many. Not least as the noble Lady of Earnest will be aware to the NFU. And they are deeply anxious by the And they are deeply anxious by the purport of the clause 86. In purport of the clause 86. In particular, the definition of a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
designated person. They're alarmed that clause. 83 actually. Gives Natural England the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
England the. Compulsory purchase powers set out in that clause, but also they're out in that clause, but also they're further exasperated. They think that by clause 86, allowing the Secretary by clause 86, allowing the Secretary of State to designate another person to exercise Natural England's functions, potentially giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
another party compulsory. Purchase powers. So my question to the noble Lady the Minister this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the noble Lady the Minister this those. Powers be. Given and whom.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given and whom. Would these. People be? May I. Thank the noble Lady. Baroness Young of Old Scone for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Young of Old Scone for. Lending support to this amendment. I'm grateful to her and amendment. I'm grateful to her and indeed the ministers, for agreeing to meet us to discuss this amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to meet us to discuss this amendment last week. So I'd like to undertake. To understand.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To understand. Which are these bodies that the government has in mind? Are they. Individuals or. Are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are. They organisations? Can they. Name them this evening? So we have no idea. Who they are? Is this. An indication.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
An indication. That I. Understand that Natural England. Are indeed losing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are indeed losing. Staff over the forseeable. The coming. Months, and therefore the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government. Is accepting that possibly Natural England do not have the capacity to cope with. The volume of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The volume of. Work which is set out in part three. So in this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
three. So in this. We go on to consider. The whole.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Remit of compulsory powers in clause 83 onwards in. I think. It would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It would. Probably be now next week, unless we're here all night. So I would just like to understand the basis on just like to understand the basis on which it would not be Natural England, when these powers are being given to Natural England for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
first time. Who these. Other bodies or individuals might be, and to make a plea that for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be, and to make a plea that for the purposes of that said clause, a. Designation designated person.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Designation designated person. Must be a public body. my Lords, can I speak to two.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To be a little bit out of place. I should actually have asked for it to pause and be. Taken with the rest of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taken with the rest of. Part three, because my amendment seeks to amend article 86 in part three. To insist that the power to three. To insist that the power to designate a person to exercise functions under this act.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Should indeed be a. Public body. Just briefly, what clause 83.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just briefly, what clause 83. Seeks to. Achieve is to. Provide the power to acquire. Land. Compulsorily.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Compulsorily. Including new. Rights over land to. Natural England, subject. To the authorisation.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the authorisation. Of the Secretary of State, and in subsection two, that the power can only be exercised if the land is only be exercised if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the EDP. Now, this came as a surprise. To many. Not least as the noble Lady of Earnest will be aware to the NFU. And they are deeply anxious by the And they are deeply anxious by the purport of the clause 86. In purport of the clause 86. In particular, the definition of a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
designated person. They're alarmed that clause. 83 actually. Gives Natural England the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
England the. Compulsory purchase powers set out in that clause, but also they're out in that clause, but also they're further exasperated. They think that by clause 86, allowing the Secretary by clause 86, allowing the Secretary of State to designate another person to exercise Natural England's functions, potentially giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
another party compulsory. Purchase powers. So my question to the noble Lady the Minister this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to the noble Lady the Minister this those. Powers be. Given and whom.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given and whom. Would these. People be? May I. Thank the noble Lady. Baroness Young of Old Scone for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Young of Old Scone for. Lending support to this amendment. I'm grateful to her and amendment. I'm grateful to her and indeed the ministers, for agreeing to meet us to discuss this amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to meet us to discuss this amendment last week. So I'd like to undertake. To understand.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To understand. Which are these bodies that the government has in mind? Are they. Individuals or. Are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are. They organisations? Can they. Name them this evening? So we have no idea. Who they are? Is this. An indication.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
An indication. That I. Understand that Natural England. Are indeed losing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are indeed losing. Staff over the forseeable. The coming. Months, and therefore the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government. Is accepting that possibly Natural England do not have the capacity to cope with. The volume of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The volume of. Work which is set out in part three. So in this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
three. So in this. We go on to consider. The whole.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Remit of compulsory powers in clause 83 onwards in. I think. It would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It would. Probably be now next week, unless we're here all night. So I would just like to understand the basis on just like to understand the basis on which it would not be Natural England, when these powers are being given to Natural England for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
first time. Who these. Other bodies or individuals might be, and to make a plea that for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be, and to make a plea that for the purposes of that said clause, a. Designation designated person.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Designation designated person. Must be a public body. my Lords, can I speak to two.
18:35
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, can I speak to two. Amendments in this group? First of all, under the government of all, under the government amendment 68, which would permit Natural England not to respond to requests for advice under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. So that they could prioritise more important cases. That actually pretty well reflects what is happening at the moment is the truth for noone, because the reality is that Natural England's resources are very thinly stretched and in many cases it provides.
Advice simply on the basis of standing, guidance and sometimes on the basis of empty silence. But I would like to prove the Minister a bit further on this one. I do apologise for giving her grief, which is clearly beset with some affliction. Three questions really. One is it's my understanding that Natural England would have to consult only the Secretary of State on the development of this statement about how it intends to deal with requests for advice, should there not be a wider consultation on such a statement, which is important for how local planning authorities are assisted to make more informed planning decisions? The second question really is has the Minister any concerns about Natural England reducing further its support to local planning authorities? When we knew that only 1 in 3 of the local planning authorities have got now in-house ecological advice.
So we're facing a reduction in the advice coming from Natural England and a reduction in the available advice to local authorities. I knew that they can buy that in, but it's less flexible and less readily available. And thirdly, my third question is perhaps you should wait for this change to happen once the government's forthcoming consultation on statutory consultees has taken place. This is consultation about consultation. This is the sort of world we live in these days.
Noble Lords are really being asked to approve this change, which is aimed at coming in immediately on the passing of this bill. And there's a specific clause that affects that. They're being asked to noble Lords is being asked to approve this change without seeing the wider picture of reform for statutory consultees within which the statement of priorities, priorities and prioritisation would sit. So if a requirement to consult more widely on the statement that Natural England supposed to produce were placed on the face of the bill, that would enable proper consideration once the picture on statutory consultees had been settled to, I think Easterling, hastening rather more slowly on this one, it would make for a much better decision.
On amendment 194. Can I support the noble Baroness? Lady McIntosh of Pickering at committee stage? The noble Baroness. The Minister said that the government would expect any delegation by the Secretary of State if Natural England. Role in developing or implementing an EDP to be generally to a public body, and indeed, in talking, the Minister and I was very pleased to be able to talk directly to both of them about this issue. The only examples that so far have been put forward for this part of delegation have been either to national parks or the Marine Management Organisation, where in in circumstances where the expertise might be more relevant to a particular EDP.
And that's entirely appropriate if there is a body that's a reliable public body, publicly accountable, with the right sort of expertise to draw up and to implement an EDP, it's appropriate that that happens. But if it's normally going to be a public body, why don't we just say a public body on the face of the bill rather than another person? No, I think there needs to be a lot of clarity here about the difference between delegating to another person to develop and implement an EDP and the sorts of partnerships I'm sure most EDPs will involve where Natural England can partner with or delegate to the delivery the delivery, but not the preparation of part of an EDP to a whole range of partners businesses.
Some of the natural resources businesses are growing up. NGOs, landowners, farmers. I'm sure there will be a huge range of people joined with Natural England in delivering EDPs, and that that will happen widely, but that will happen with Natural England as the co-ordinating body, coordinating that delivery by partners in line with the EDP. That sort of partnership working is absolutely admirable and can happen without this delegation provision, because this clause of the bill, clause 86, is in reality about taking the development and or the delivery of these potentially highly controversial EDPs away from the statutory body, that is, the government's statutory adviser and agency on nature conservation, and potentially giving extensive responsibilities in Paris to person persons as yet unidentified, if they are to be public bodies.
Why not state that on the bill if they are not to be public bodies? Can the noble Lady the Minister help us understand this a bit more as to who these non-public bodies might be? Can she give us some examples? I would find it very difficult to believe that a private individual or a private organisation would have the range of expertise and experience that statutory bodies accrue over the years in doing these things, successively, over time, and will develop even more as they take forward successive EDPs and learn increasingly how to do it.
If I were a landowner, I would be very anxious about not knowing who might in the future have all of these Natural England powers to develop and implement EDPs, not knowing what background and expertise they might have, not knowing how extensive the powers might be that they are to be given, not knowing what their stance and approach would be to compulsory purchase. Public bodies are to a large extent known quantities. Another person or persons, unknown or not. If public bodies screw up, the government can sack the chairman.
I knew all about that. Government has no sanctions of that sort for private bodies. How will they hold them accountable? Can the minister tell us so? Can the Minister assure landowners and reassure them about these concerns? I would suggest that the safest way forward, if ministers are pretty clear in reality, that they would only delegate these important duties and powers to a public body, that they simply reassure everybody by saying a public body on the face of the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. I don't want to talk to. All the amendments in this group.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, can I speak to two. Amendments in this group? First of all, under the government of all, under the government amendment 68, which would permit Natural England not to respond to requests for advice under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. So that they could prioritise more important cases. That actually pretty well reflects what is happening at the moment is the truth for noone, because the reality is that Natural England's resources are very thinly stretched and in many cases it provides.
Advice simply on the basis of standing, guidance and sometimes on the basis of empty silence. But I would like to prove the Minister a bit further on this one. I do apologise for giving her grief, which is clearly beset with some affliction. Three questions really. One is it's my understanding that Natural England would have to consult only the Secretary of State on the development of this statement about how it intends to deal with requests for advice, should there not be a wider consultation on such a statement, which is important for how local planning authorities are assisted to make more informed planning decisions? The second question really is has the Minister any concerns about Natural England reducing further its support to local planning authorities? When we knew that only 1 in 3 of the local planning authorities have got now in-house ecological advice.
So we're facing a reduction in the advice coming from Natural England and a reduction in the available advice to local authorities. I knew that they can buy that in, but it's less flexible and less readily available. And thirdly, my third question is perhaps you should wait for this change to happen once the government's forthcoming consultation on statutory consultees has taken place. This is consultation about consultation. This is the sort of world we live in these days.
Noble Lords are really being asked to approve this change, which is aimed at coming in immediately on the passing of this bill. And there's a specific clause that affects that. They're being asked to noble Lords is being asked to approve this change without seeing the wider picture of reform for statutory consultees within which the statement of priorities, priorities and prioritisation would sit. So if a requirement to consult more widely on the statement that Natural England supposed to produce were placed on the face of the bill, that would enable proper consideration once the picture on statutory consultees had been settled to, I think Easterling, hastening rather more slowly on this one, it would make for a much better decision.
On amendment 194. Can I support the noble Baroness? Lady McIntosh of Pickering at committee stage? The noble Baroness. The Minister said that the government would expect any delegation by the Secretary of State if Natural England. Role in developing or implementing an EDP to be generally to a public body, and indeed, in talking, the Minister and I was very pleased to be able to talk directly to both of them about this issue. The only examples that so far have been put forward for this part of delegation have been either to national parks or the Marine Management Organisation, where in in circumstances where the expertise might be more relevant to a particular EDP.
And that's entirely appropriate if there is a body that's a reliable public body, publicly accountable, with the right sort of expertise to draw up and to implement an EDP, it's appropriate that that happens. But if it's normally going to be a public body, why don't we just say a public body on the face of the bill rather than another person? No, I think there needs to be a lot of clarity here about the difference between delegating to another person to develop and implement an EDP and the sorts of partnerships I'm sure most EDPs will involve where Natural England can partner with or delegate to the delivery the delivery, but not the preparation of part of an EDP to a whole range of partners businesses.
Some of the natural resources businesses are growing up. NGOs, landowners, farmers. I'm sure there will be a huge range of people joined with Natural England in delivering EDPs, and that that will happen widely, but that will happen with Natural England as the co-ordinating body, coordinating that delivery by partners in line with the EDP. That sort of partnership working is absolutely admirable and can happen without this delegation provision, because this clause of the bill, clause 86, is in reality about taking the development and or the delivery of these potentially highly controversial EDPs away from the statutory body, that is, the government's statutory adviser and agency on nature conservation, and potentially giving extensive responsibilities in Paris to person persons as yet unidentified, if they are to be public bodies.
Why not state that on the bill if they are not to be public bodies? Can the noble Lady the Minister help us understand this a bit more as to who these non-public bodies might be? Can she give us some examples? I would find it very difficult to believe that a private individual or a private organisation would have the range of expertise and experience that statutory bodies accrue over the years in doing these things, successively, over time, and will develop even more as they take forward successive EDPs and learn increasingly how to do it.
If I were a landowner, I would be very anxious about not knowing who might in the future have all of these Natural England powers to develop and implement EDPs, not knowing what background and expertise they might have, not knowing how extensive the powers might be that they are to be given, not knowing what their stance and approach would be to compulsory purchase. Public bodies are to a large extent known quantities. Another person or persons, unknown or not. If public bodies screw up, the government can sack the chairman.
I knew all about that. Government has no sanctions of that sort for private bodies. How will they hold them accountable? Can the minister tell us so? Can the Minister assure landowners and reassure them about these concerns? I would suggest that the safest way forward, if ministers are pretty clear in reality, that they would only delegate these important duties and powers to a public body, that they simply reassure everybody by saying a public body on the face of the bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. I don't want to talk to. All the amendments in this group.
18:42
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All the amendments in this group. I just want to talk to amendment 200. And perhaps just one remark about amendment 194. I have to say, I'm not persuaded by amendment 194. I'm not persuaded by amendment 194. Seems to me just our our day by day experience of working.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With organisations who provide. Environmental impact. Assessments, environmental
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Assessments, environmental outcomes reports and have all the expertise that we might need in this context is not to be found
**** Possible New Speaker ****
context is not to be found exclusively in public bodies. So I would not support 194. I tabled amendment 200.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I tabled amendment 200. We had a debate, short debate in committee about the question of the relationship between Natural England relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Now, clearly, as as we noted then, Now, clearly, as as we noted then, Natural England have to have regard to development plans. But I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to development plans. But I think the sooner. That Natural. England can be aware of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. It is not that they necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
programming for their activity, and the pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. So moment 200.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So moment 200. Is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England about
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a duty to tell Natural England about when they have potential sites for. Development. By which I interpret sort of a regulation 19 stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
regulation 19 stage. If they're coming. Forward with what they are going to propose for consultation as the sites where they would undertake development, then I think they should tell Natural England that and Natural England can factor into their thinking about environmental delivery plans, what that might emerge a year, typically it's a year or more after that point to the adoption of a development plan. So it gives them access and time. I, I completely understand if the minister says, well, this is necessary because they can do that, but we're talking about statutory processes and we're talking about local planning authorities who who are so pressed that they won't do those things they're not required to do.
And I think actually, in order to make this system work, a regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to. Inform the process of EDP making would be a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
helpful addition. I know Lords in rising after the noble Lord Lansley. I'm certainly
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All the amendments in this group. I just want to talk to amendment 200. And perhaps just one remark about amendment 194. I have to say, I'm not persuaded by amendment 194. I'm not persuaded by amendment 194. Seems to me just our our day by day experience of working.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With organisations who provide. Environmental impact. Assessments, environmental
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Assessments, environmental outcomes reports and have all the expertise that we might need in this context is not to be found
**** Possible New Speaker ****
context is not to be found exclusively in public bodies. So I would not support 194. I tabled amendment 200.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I tabled amendment 200. We had a debate, short debate in committee about the question of the relationship between Natural England relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Now, clearly, as as we noted then, Now, clearly, as as we noted then, Natural England have to have regard to development plans. But I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to development plans. But I think the sooner. That Natural. England can be aware of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. It is not that they necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
programming for their activity, and the pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. So moment 200.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So moment 200. Is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England about
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a duty to tell Natural England about when they have potential sites for. Development. By which I interpret sort of a regulation 19 stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
regulation 19 stage. If they're coming. Forward with what they are going to propose for consultation as the sites where they would undertake development, then I think they should tell Natural England that and Natural England can factor into their thinking about environmental delivery plans, what that might emerge a year, typically it's a year or more after that point to the adoption of a development plan. So it gives them access and time. I, I completely understand if the minister says, well, this is necessary because they can do that, but we're talking about statutory processes and we're talking about local planning authorities who who are so pressed that they won't do those things they're not required to do.
And I think actually, in order to make this system work, a regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to. Inform the process of EDP making would be a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
helpful addition. I know Lords in rising after the noble Lord Lansley. I'm certainly
18:45
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
noble Lord Lansley. I'm certainly going to say that I think the noble Lords made a very important point and practical point, but I rise chiefly to speak against government amendment 68. And I'm also going to briefly reflect reflect on amendment 194. Following on really from the comments of the noble Lady Baroness Young about who this is, this power has been delegated to another person, and I would hope that the noble Lady, the Minister, can reassure me that this is not in the government's mind, or indeed, she can guarantee that it won't be a source of outsourcing that we've seen in so many areas of government to giant multinational companies that are expert at bidding for contracts and terrible at delivering on them, and that we're not going to see that sort of outsourcing disaster to follow so many other outsourcing disasters.
And I think also when we think about what's happened, for example, with building control, it's really important that oversight is not outsourced to the people who are then end up marking their own home for the work that they've done. But chiefly, I wanted to address a government amendment 68, and I notes that I've received briefings from the Wildlife Trust, the Bat Conservation Trust, and the Better Coalition Planning Coalition, all of whom are opposed to this government. Step here. And I think the context has to be noted.
The respective commentator guy from Scholl, writing in The Guardian last year, noted how Natural England had been undermined by austerity. It was incapable of carrying out even its basic functions because of simple lack of resources. And of course, as other noble Lords have said, we have local governments heavily hit by austerity with a severe lack of resources, and in this context, the capacity to be able to assess ecological issues. And I think another noble Lord C Natural England is effectively already streamlining its responses, very often replying in a codified way because it doesn't have the resources.
And the idea that we should be putting on to the face of the bill something that cuts down the oversight when we are one of the most nature depleted corners of this battered planet, really can't be defended, is deeply concerning. We have this requires real skills, real knowledge, real training, and most local authorities in particular, simply don't have those resources available to them. And indeed, those resources are scarce overall, so it's better if they're actually concentrated in one place with real expertise.
And this would also, I think it's important to say, limit the opportunities to deliver win wins from development ways in which there could be proposals that are actually improve the development for people and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
improve the development for nature, as well. As review. The speech by.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Barnard Castle. Saying she's opposed to the bill. I feel it's my turn to pop out
And I think also when we think about what's happened, for example, with building control, it's really important that oversight is not outsourced to the people who are then end up marking their own home for the work that they've done. But chiefly, I wanted to address a government amendment 68, and I notes that I've received briefings from the Wildlife Trust, the Bat Conservation Trust, and the Better Coalition Planning Coalition, all of whom are opposed to this government. Step here. And I think the context has to be noted.
The respective commentator guy from Scholl, writing in The Guardian last year, noted how Natural England had been undermined by austerity. It was incapable of carrying out even its basic functions because of simple lack of resources. And of course, as other noble Lords have said, we have local governments heavily hit by austerity with a severe lack of resources, and in this context, the capacity to be able to assess ecological issues. And I think another noble Lord C Natural England is effectively already streamlining its responses, very often replying in a codified way because it doesn't have the resources.
And the idea that we should be putting on to the face of the bill something that cuts down the oversight when we are one of the most nature depleted corners of this battered planet, really can't be defended, is deeply concerning. We have this requires real skills, real knowledge, real training, and most local authorities in particular, simply don't have those resources available to them. And indeed, those resources are scarce overall, so it's better if they're actually concentrated in one place with real expertise.
And this would also, I think it's important to say, limit the opportunities to deliver win wins from development ways in which there could be proposals that are actually improve the development for people and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
improve the development for nature, as well. As review. The speech by.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Barnard Castle. Saying she's opposed to the bill. I feel it's my turn to pop out
18:48
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I feel it's my turn to pop out now and say, I think this is a very sensible amendment and based on my time in Natural England, I strongly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
supported genuinely. It was my experience. The local authorities. Bounced over to Natural England. Tens of thousands of planning applications, most of which were irrelevant to us in that we had no real reason to give a view. If the application affected an SSI and national nature. Reserve or National Park AoNB within coal, or something protected by the Habitats Regulations or developments of the finest agricultural land, then Natural England was duty bound to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in. Complex cases, not as quickly as. Some would like. However, we had
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Some would like. However, we had to get it right or as right as. Possible, since. It could result. In the rejection. Of the application.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the application. By the council. Then there would be appeals and judicial reviews, and possibly the loss of a good. Infrastructure project. My Lords
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Infrastructure project. My Lords what are the statistics to justify this change in the 2324 annual report from Natural England to the Housing and Local Government Department, Natural England reported Department, Natural England reported the received 24,664 planning application consultations, 20,503 application consultations, 20,503 consultations and 91.7% were responded to within 21 days or responded to within 21 days or otherwise agreed deadlines. 754 deadline extensions were granted for planning application consultations. planning application consultations. That's 3.7%. Natural England sent That's 3.7%.
Natural England sent 20,370 responses to customers, and the average taking time to providing a substantive response was 11.9 days. In addition, my Lords Natural England received 1096 England received 1096 pre-application consultations either directly from developers or via directly from developers or via local planning authorities, and the responded to 68.9% of these within 21 days, or or with otherwise agreed deadlines. Natural England now deals with a high proportion of complex cases, most relating to impacts on natural habitat sites or protected landscapes like national parks and national landscapes.
In 2324, this included receiving 161 consultations for nationally significant infrastructure projects and CIPs 895 local Plan consultations and 96 environmental impact Assessment requests relating to screening and or scoping my Lords. In the last few years, there had been a 40% increase in CIPs in recent years, and there are the ones which required a lot of work and in some cases, site visits and meetings. However, as the minister said, Natural England is legally bound to respond to all
**** Possible New Speaker ****
requests. All told, in that year Natural England. There are over 32,000 planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are over 32,000 planning consultations on my Lords in 47% of them. Natural England had no them. Natural England had no statutory remit since they were very low risk. That's 15,000 cases where Natural England had to spend time Natural England had to spend time writing back saying they had nothing to comment on. Now I got the clear impression I am not that cynical in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
impression I am not that cynical in it, but I got the clear. Impression that many local authorities bunged applications to Natural England. I would just tick the box and then show their local representatives that they were investigating every avenue before granting permission, and even Natural England was happy because they didn't object. Therefore, my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they didn't object. Therefore, my Lords, I was very keen for Natural England to. Move to this new strategic. Approach and shift.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Approach and shift. To focusing on high risk and high opportunity casework with an emphasis on strategic engagement and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
emphasis on strategic engagement and delivering solutions up front. Natural England also wants to emphasise the importance of high quality applications, as well as the need to reduce levels of unnecessary consultations which they receive. consultations which they receive. And we can do that by signposting local planning authorities to Natural England's new impact risk Natural England's new impact risk zones. Delivery advice service. Now this is an exciting and long overdue shift. Now I have no time to go into the details tonight, but there are three main thrusts in my opinion.
First, the low risk routine applications must be put in what I would call autopilot so that Natural England can concentrate on planning, advice, work and moving on to a more strategic place. There needs to be standard responses for lower risk work under supplementary provisions, the Minister has outlined in subsection three of the amendment of 68 will set out how local authorities can determine these applications themselves based on criteria published by Natural England and approved by the Secretary of State.
And I say to the noble Lady the Baroness Young of old school, she's got tremendous experience of this as well from her time in Natural England. But I assure her this is very low risk stuff. Now my shelves are full of books called the Idiot's Guide to How to Walk Your Mac, The Idiot's Guide to Work, Your iPad, The Idiot's Guide to switch on your mobile Phone. I'm not making an insinuation about local councils, but I can see the Natural England advice being circulated. The Idiot's guide how to grant planning permission.
A local council for low risk applications. And I hope the guidance will actually be that simple. The second thrust my Lords is natural. England needs to concentrate on the big strategic stuff. Now. This is where they can make the biggest impact for nature recovery. Recognising that nature and economic growth coexist and need to thrive together. And third, Natural England is keen to do much more upfront pre-application engagement and sees the importance of security and opportunities and mitigation for nature within development policies.
And they need to focus on efforts where the opportunity is great and small noise, as well as address significant environmental risk. This means having as much time as possible to advise, or high risk and high opportunity casework. And if we can do they can do that approach now, they will secure last few vital outcomes and create wider economic and social benefits for communities. My Lords I must tell you, it was just which justifies doing this upfront work. It was just before my time joining Natural England, but I understand the Natural England reached out to HS2 as soon as it got the original bill passed to say come to us as soon as possible with any and all the plans you've got, which may impact on protected sites and habitats along the route, and we'll work on mitigation measures to head off the problems.
I understand the answer was that we are HS2. We don't need your input, so just butt out. Then when it was too late, they came along to see that he had a problem with protected bats and what should they do about it? My Lords it was Hs2's plan to build that £100 million tunnel, not Natural England, but we had to approve it since by their arrogance they'd run out of options. And I think I see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, sitting opposite, and he might agree that we'd all share £100 million for a bat tunnels obscene, but to naturally but to HS2 this is just pocket money they were spending.
And I must say to some of my noble friends, Natural England decision on this and other things was not an out of control quango. We're doing it for the hell of it. Or because we could do it because we thought we could do it. We were following United Kingdom Habitats regulations, and I say United Kingdom Habitats Regulations because we incorporated them all into UK law. And I said to Conservative ministers at the time, if you don't like Natural England implementing the law, then change the law.
And finally that, my Lords, nearly every official I spoke to was certain that if HS2 had involved Natural England eight years ago, then the problem of the route and the bats would have been headed off and they would have solved it without that expense. So that is why pre-planning engagement is so important, because it speeds up planning. It avoids crisis arising at the last minute because organisations have found to hit an environmental problem. Natural England must be freed from the 15,000 irrelevant, low risk cases.
So it has time to deal early on with the big strategic stuff which will make a difference and promote growth, while safeguard guardian of biodiversity. That is why I support the amendment, sir.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a pleasure to follow Lord Lancaster, and it reflects the view well that there are differences of
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I feel it's my turn to pop out now and say, I think this is a very sensible amendment and based on my time in Natural England, I strongly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
supported genuinely. It was my experience. The local authorities. Bounced over to Natural England. Tens of thousands of planning applications, most of which were irrelevant to us in that we had no real reason to give a view. If the application affected an SSI and national nature. Reserve or National Park AoNB within coal, or something protected by the Habitats Regulations or developments of the finest agricultural land, then Natural England was duty bound to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in. Complex cases, not as quickly as. Some would like. However, we had
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Some would like. However, we had to get it right or as right as. Possible, since. It could result. In the rejection. Of the application.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the application. By the council. Then there would be appeals and judicial reviews, and possibly the loss of a good. Infrastructure project. My Lords
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Infrastructure project. My Lords what are the statistics to justify this change in the 2324 annual report from Natural England to the Housing and Local Government Department, Natural England reported Department, Natural England reported the received 24,664 planning application consultations, 20,503 application consultations, 20,503 consultations and 91.7% were responded to within 21 days or responded to within 21 days or otherwise agreed deadlines. 754 deadline extensions were granted for planning application consultations. planning application consultations. That's 3.7%. Natural England sent That's 3.7%.
Natural England sent 20,370 responses to customers, and the average taking time to providing a substantive response was 11.9 days. In addition, my Lords Natural England received 1096 England received 1096 pre-application consultations either directly from developers or via directly from developers or via local planning authorities, and the responded to 68.9% of these within 21 days, or or with otherwise agreed deadlines. Natural England now deals with a high proportion of complex cases, most relating to impacts on natural habitat sites or protected landscapes like national parks and national landscapes.
In 2324, this included receiving 161 consultations for nationally significant infrastructure projects and CIPs 895 local Plan consultations and 96 environmental impact Assessment requests relating to screening and or scoping my Lords. In the last few years, there had been a 40% increase in CIPs in recent years, and there are the ones which required a lot of work and in some cases, site visits and meetings. However, as the minister said, Natural England is legally bound to respond to all
**** Possible New Speaker ****
requests. All told, in that year Natural England. There are over 32,000 planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are over 32,000 planning consultations on my Lords in 47% of them. Natural England had no them. Natural England had no statutory remit since they were very low risk. That's 15,000 cases where Natural England had to spend time Natural England had to spend time writing back saying they had nothing to comment on. Now I got the clear impression I am not that cynical in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
impression I am not that cynical in it, but I got the clear. Impression that many local authorities bunged applications to Natural England. I would just tick the box and then show their local representatives that they were investigating every avenue before granting permission, and even Natural England was happy because they didn't object. Therefore, my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they didn't object. Therefore, my Lords, I was very keen for Natural England to. Move to this new strategic. Approach and shift.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Approach and shift. To focusing on high risk and high opportunity casework with an emphasis on strategic engagement and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
emphasis on strategic engagement and delivering solutions up front. Natural England also wants to emphasise the importance of high quality applications, as well as the need to reduce levels of unnecessary consultations which they receive. consultations which they receive. And we can do that by signposting local planning authorities to Natural England's new impact risk Natural England's new impact risk zones. Delivery advice service. Now this is an exciting and long overdue shift. Now I have no time to go into the details tonight, but there are three main thrusts in my opinion.
First, the low risk routine applications must be put in what I would call autopilot so that Natural England can concentrate on planning, advice, work and moving on to a more strategic place. There needs to be standard responses for lower risk work under supplementary provisions, the Minister has outlined in subsection three of the amendment of 68 will set out how local authorities can determine these applications themselves based on criteria published by Natural England and approved by the Secretary of State.
And I say to the noble Lady the Baroness Young of old school, she's got tremendous experience of this as well from her time in Natural England. But I assure her this is very low risk stuff. Now my shelves are full of books called the Idiot's Guide to How to Walk Your Mac, The Idiot's Guide to Work, Your iPad, The Idiot's Guide to switch on your mobile Phone. I'm not making an insinuation about local councils, but I can see the Natural England advice being circulated. The Idiot's guide how to grant planning permission.
A local council for low risk applications. And I hope the guidance will actually be that simple. The second thrust my Lords is natural. England needs to concentrate on the big strategic stuff. Now. This is where they can make the biggest impact for nature recovery. Recognising that nature and economic growth coexist and need to thrive together. And third, Natural England is keen to do much more upfront pre-application engagement and sees the importance of security and opportunities and mitigation for nature within development policies.
And they need to focus on efforts where the opportunity is great and small noise, as well as address significant environmental risk. This means having as much time as possible to advise, or high risk and high opportunity casework. And if we can do they can do that approach now, they will secure last few vital outcomes and create wider economic and social benefits for communities. My Lords I must tell you, it was just which justifies doing this upfront work. It was just before my time joining Natural England, but I understand the Natural England reached out to HS2 as soon as it got the original bill passed to say come to us as soon as possible with any and all the plans you've got, which may impact on protected sites and habitats along the route, and we'll work on mitigation measures to head off the problems.
I understand the answer was that we are HS2. We don't need your input, so just butt out. Then when it was too late, they came along to see that he had a problem with protected bats and what should they do about it? My Lords it was Hs2's plan to build that £100 million tunnel, not Natural England, but we had to approve it since by their arrogance they'd run out of options. And I think I see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, sitting opposite, and he might agree that we'd all share £100 million for a bat tunnels obscene, but to naturally but to HS2 this is just pocket money they were spending.
And I must say to some of my noble friends, Natural England decision on this and other things was not an out of control quango. We're doing it for the hell of it. Or because we could do it because we thought we could do it. We were following United Kingdom Habitats regulations, and I say United Kingdom Habitats Regulations because we incorporated them all into UK law. And I said to Conservative ministers at the time, if you don't like Natural England implementing the law, then change the law.
And finally that, my Lords, nearly every official I spoke to was certain that if HS2 had involved Natural England eight years ago, then the problem of the route and the bats would have been headed off and they would have solved it without that expense. So that is why pre-planning engagement is so important, because it speeds up planning. It avoids crisis arising at the last minute because organisations have found to hit an environmental problem. Natural England must be freed from the 15,000 irrelevant, low risk cases.
So it has time to deal early on with the big strategic stuff which will make a difference and promote growth, while safeguard guardian of biodiversity. That is why I support the amendment, sir.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a pleasure to follow Lord Lancaster, and it reflects the view well that there are differences of
18:55
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
well that there are differences of opinion on. This late government amendment 68 around the. House and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reinforces the point that. It's disappointing. That at this late stage in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill, what is a fairly significant shift in policy. Is being. Introduced by this government. This is not. Tidying up. It is not This is not. Tidying up. It is not in. Response to anything that anybody raised at committee. It is clearly something that is being
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clearly something that is being driven by political aims. As. Was made very clear. In the press release which accompanied.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
accompanied. The indication of the government new. Amendments. At this. Stage of the bill. And it's. Very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very. Disappointing that, as the noble lady Baroness Jolly mentioned, there
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lady Baroness Jolly mentioned, there the. Department. On statutory consultees, which if there was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there was. Going to. Be a. Detailed look at the role of Natural. England as a statutory consultee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
England as a statutory consultee. Then it could have fitted into that. There could have been a proper consultation with the people who are most affected local authorities, most affected local authorities, whereas instead it's just being foisted on us at this last stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With absolutely no consultation. In the meantime with. The LGA and I've. Spoken to the LGA side, I would be delighted if the Minister could tell me that she has any views from the LGA. She was very keen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To tell us what the view of Natural England. Was, our sports Lord Lancaster. But what are the. Views of the people who are going to be most affected, which is the hard pushed, pushed local authorities who in the absence of planning advice, it's not going to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
speed up planning. They're still going to have to make a decisions. press. Release.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Release. Said, which is, quote, helping to accelerate approvals for new homes and infrastructure. They're going to be struggling around. To find.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To find. The advice that they have previously got. But I have a couple of questions. That I would like to put to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That I would like to put to the minister as well as was, as I think the minister referred to in our opening remarks, she talked about the fact that last summer, Natural England sent round a letter last August. It's about a letter to all local authorities telling them that local authorities telling them that there would be a cutting back in planning services. And so my question to the minister is given the natural link has already got an established modus operandi from last established modus operandi from last year, which was about cutting back in a in a progressive way.
Why? What in a in a progressive way. Why? What is the problem since then that needs solving? Why do we need a piece of legislation given there was a legislation given there was a perfectly reasonable, non-legislative means for Natural England to prioritise cases, what is the problem that this is seeking to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
solve? And secondly, as I think again, Baroness. Young mentioned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Looking at the actual wording of the amendment, the only people that Natural England have to consult on in determining who they are going to set out the requests for advice, the only person they have to consult. With is the Secretary of State. Now, for a Labour government, a Labour government to be saying that they will do a consultation on something that will fundamentally change the resources available to local authorities who are in the vanguard of protecting our countryside and building the homes we need that the only people they're going to talk to is people in the department I think is a disgrace.
I think it's an absolute disgrace that. In in point number, small point number six, it just says before publishing a statement, the only people the Natural England must consult are the Secretary of State. It doesn't talk to local authorities. And yet these are the people who will be having to actually live with these decisions. And I go back to my central point. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do not see why this is needed, given there is a perfectly reasonable process put in place. By.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By. Natural England to streamline the advice that they give to local authorities. It leads me to believe authorities. It leads me to believe that there is something more lurking behind this amendment that we can't
**** Possible New Speaker ****
behind this amendment that we can't quite see, but it is absolutely wrong to my mind that if this goes. Through.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Through. That a Labour government is putting it forward without consulting the very people that part consulting the very people that part of our communities who are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
responsible for doing this, it. my Lords, in rising to address
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reinforces the point that. It's disappointing. That at this late stage in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill, what is a fairly significant shift in policy. Is being. Introduced by this government. This is not. Tidying up. It is not This is not. Tidying up. It is not in. Response to anything that anybody raised at committee. It is clearly something that is being
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clearly something that is being driven by political aims. As. Was made very clear. In the press release which accompanied.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
accompanied. The indication of the government new. Amendments. At this. Stage of the bill. And it's. Very.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very. Disappointing that, as the noble lady Baroness Jolly mentioned, there
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lady Baroness Jolly mentioned, there the. Department. On statutory consultees, which if there was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there was. Going to. Be a. Detailed look at the role of Natural. England as a statutory consultee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
England as a statutory consultee. Then it could have fitted into that. There could have been a proper consultation with the people who are most affected local authorities, most affected local authorities, whereas instead it's just being foisted on us at this last stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With absolutely no consultation. In the meantime with. The LGA and I've. Spoken to the LGA side, I would be delighted if the Minister could tell me that she has any views from the LGA. She was very keen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To tell us what the view of Natural England. Was, our sports Lord Lancaster. But what are the. Views of the people who are going to be most affected, which is the hard pushed, pushed local authorities who in the absence of planning advice, it's not going to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
speed up planning. They're still going to have to make a decisions. press. Release.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Release. Said, which is, quote, helping to accelerate approvals for new homes and infrastructure. They're going to be struggling around. To find.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To find. The advice that they have previously got. But I have a couple of questions. That I would like to put to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That I would like to put to the minister as well as was, as I think the minister referred to in our opening remarks, she talked about the fact that last summer, Natural England sent round a letter last August. It's about a letter to all local authorities telling them that local authorities telling them that there would be a cutting back in planning services. And so my question to the minister is given the natural link has already got an established modus operandi from last established modus operandi from last year, which was about cutting back in a in a progressive way.
Why? What in a in a progressive way. Why? What is the problem since then that needs solving? Why do we need a piece of legislation given there was a legislation given there was a perfectly reasonable, non-legislative means for Natural England to prioritise cases, what is the problem that this is seeking to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
solve? And secondly, as I think again, Baroness. Young mentioned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Looking at the actual wording of the amendment, the only people that Natural England have to consult on in determining who they are going to set out the requests for advice, the only person they have to consult. With is the Secretary of State. Now, for a Labour government, a Labour government to be saying that they will do a consultation on something that will fundamentally change the resources available to local authorities who are in the vanguard of protecting our countryside and building the homes we need that the only people they're going to talk to is people in the department I think is a disgrace.
I think it's an absolute disgrace that. In in point number, small point number six, it just says before publishing a statement, the only people the Natural England must consult are the Secretary of State. It doesn't talk to local authorities. And yet these are the people who will be having to actually live with these decisions. And I go back to my central point. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
do not see why this is needed, given there is a perfectly reasonable process put in place. By.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By. Natural England to streamline the advice that they give to local authorities. It leads me to believe authorities. It leads me to believe that there is something more lurking behind this amendment that we can't
**** Possible New Speaker ****
behind this amendment that we can't quite see, but it is absolutely wrong to my mind that if this goes. Through.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Through. That a Labour government is putting it forward without consulting the very people that part consulting the very people that part of our communities who are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
responsible for doing this, it. my Lords, in rising to address
19:00
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, in rising to address this group of amendments, I first draw the House's attention to my register of interests as a landowner register of interests as a landowner and as a housing developer. And before I begin with the amendments before us, I would like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, whether her government has considered the impact of the Supreme Court judgement released today on the CG fry case. This question is relevant to this and other debates we will have today and in later days.
Report in your Lordships Chamber for the benefit of the House. The judgement found that Ramsar sites impacted by developments do not have the protection in law previously assumed to derive from the Habitats Regulations. From that I have several questions. If the noble Baroness the Minister does not yet have answers, I wonder whether she would be able to write to me before the next stage of the report on this bill, or perhaps comments in a later group. We know that this decision releases 18,000 housing units in the Somerset Levels alone.
Of the 160,000 units currently blocked nationally by Natural England's advice on nutrients and other neutrality, how many are to use for Ramsar and how many to European designations where the rules still apply? In other words, how many houses nationally have now been released from blockage by nutrient neutrality rules? The bill is drafted, imposes the legal obligations of the Habitats Regulations on roundswell sites. Therefore, the effect of the bill now becomes to block housing developments rather than allow it.
We on these benches will seek to amend the bill to remove this effect. My amendments 208 would take clause 90 out of the bill, and I will table further amendments as needed. Have the government's intentions towards clause 90 and schedule six now changed as a result of this ruling? We are not. Benches are delighted with this ruling as it releases much needed supply into the housing market. I hope the governments are equally delighted as it is a step towards their target of 1.5 million houses.
It does also highlight the issue that the small nut has been cracked by the sledgehammer of part three of this bill has just been shrunk even further, and we will return next week to the many questions around part three of this bill. Turning to the amendments in this group, and beginning with governments, amendments 68 and 262, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to reduce the obligations of Natural England as a welcome streamlining of the planning process. Amendment 194. In the name of my Noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is important, and we would welcome clarity from the noble Baroness.
The Minister, in her response that the intent is that Natural England's powers can only be delegated to public bodies, and which public bodies those might be. We agree with the noble Baroness Lord Young that it should say public bodies on the face of the bill, the powers being given to Natural England. In this bill we will oppose and they risk creating an authoritarian empire. The idea that these can then be delegated to private sector entities or potentially unsuitable bodies, really is intolerable, and we will return to this later if necessary.
In my amendments 195, amendment 200, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Lansley is a sensible one that would allow for better planning of GDP requirements, and I look forward to the responses from the noble Baroness the Minister.
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, in rising to address this group of amendments, I first draw the House's attention to my register of interests as a landowner register of interests as a landowner and as a housing developer. And before I begin with the amendments before us, I would like to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, whether her government has considered the impact of the Supreme Court judgement released today on the CG fry case. This question is relevant to this and other debates we will have today and in later days.
Report in your Lordships Chamber for the benefit of the House. The judgement found that Ramsar sites impacted by developments do not have the protection in law previously assumed to derive from the Habitats Regulations. From that I have several questions. If the noble Baroness the Minister does not yet have answers, I wonder whether she would be able to write to me before the next stage of the report on this bill, or perhaps comments in a later group. We know that this decision releases 18,000 housing units in the Somerset Levels alone.
Of the 160,000 units currently blocked nationally by Natural England's advice on nutrients and other neutrality, how many are to use for Ramsar and how many to European designations where the rules still apply? In other words, how many houses nationally have now been released from blockage by nutrient neutrality rules? The bill is drafted, imposes the legal obligations of the Habitats Regulations on roundswell sites. Therefore, the effect of the bill now becomes to block housing developments rather than allow it.
We on these benches will seek to amend the bill to remove this effect. My amendments 208 would take clause 90 out of the bill, and I will table further amendments as needed. Have the government's intentions towards clause 90 and schedule six now changed as a result of this ruling? We are not. Benches are delighted with this ruling as it releases much needed supply into the housing market. I hope the governments are equally delighted as it is a step towards their target of 1.5 million houses.
It does also highlight the issue that the small nut has been cracked by the sledgehammer of part three of this bill has just been shrunk even further, and we will return next week to the many questions around part three of this bill. Turning to the amendments in this group, and beginning with governments, amendments 68 and 262, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to reduce the obligations of Natural England as a welcome streamlining of the planning process. Amendment 194. In the name of my Noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is important, and we would welcome clarity from the noble Baroness.
The Minister, in her response that the intent is that Natural England's powers can only be delegated to public bodies, and which public bodies those might be. We agree with the noble Baroness Lord Young that it should say public bodies on the face of the bill, the powers being given to Natural England. In this bill we will oppose and they risk creating an authoritarian empire. The idea that these can then be delegated to private sector entities or potentially unsuitable bodies, really is intolerable, and we will return to this later if necessary.
In my amendments 195, amendment 200, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Lansley is a sensible one that would allow for better planning of GDP requirements, and I look forward to the responses from the noble Baroness the Minister.
19:03
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
my Lords, can I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate? First of all, just go through the responses to the government amendments and I thank the noble Lord Lord blank after for his support. There were questions both from my Noble friend Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Young and for noble Lady Baroness Parminter about why. This amends being made now, why
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we feel that this is this is needed. And I. Just like to remind noble Lords that Natural England currently
**** Possible New Speaker ****
receives around. 22,500 town and country planning consultations every single year. consultations every single year. Many are low to medium risk, and about 30% of them don't actually need Natural England's input because
**** Possible New Speaker ****
need Natural England's input because they aren't a Fall outside the statutory remit. Under the Development Management Procedure Order, or don't relate. To its.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To its. General. Purpose.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are set out in the Note Act and Baroness. Palmer specifically asked about what was the problem that this was trying to solve. And it's mainly was trying to solve. And it's mainly because over the last decade, the volume of planning casework that has been received by Natural England has increased by 75% as there is nothing lurking behind it. It's just that the huge amount of extra work that Natural England now has to deal Natural England now has to deal with.
And because of this, there's less time available for the work that makes the most impact, such as that makes the most impact, such as shaping local plans, advising on major infrastructure and protecting major infrastructure and protecting nature. Where the risks are are greatest, and on local authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And my Noble friend Baroness Young and noble Lady Baroness Parminter. Both asked. About this. We are looking to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
About this. We are looking to work with with Ljs in advance of any change coming through and working through the details with them of through the details with them of exactly how it's going to work, what it's going to mean for them. So we are we are involving local are we are involving local authorities and regarding access to sufficient ecological advice, Natural England is going to continue Natural England is going to continue to provide advice to local planning authorities in cases where bespoke advice is necessary, which will advice is necessary, which will include any high risk and high opportunity casework.
And in addition, Natural England will still addition, Natural England will still be required to provide a response under the Development Management Procedure Order which is not Procedure Order which is not affected by this amendment, and this includes where a government is likely to effect a triple C, or would involve a loss of more than 20. Hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, it is ultimately the local planning authorities themselves who planning authorities themselves who are responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of individual planning applications in line with planning applications in line with relevant planning policy and legislation, and this will remain legislation, and this will remain unchanged.
The noble Lord Lord Roper asked specifically about the Supreme Court judgement on the Fry case, which was handed down this morning. As he said, we just like to say that we are very grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarification. We will continue to drive the delivery of the homes and infrastructure that the country needs. But as we move forward with the bill we are debating today, we're clear that the planning system has to do everything it can to support sustainable development.
On his more detailed questions. We do really, it's only this morning we need time to analyse the decisions. I'm sure we will be coming back to this. Turning to the other amendments in this group. First of all, amendment 194, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Mackintosh, which would provide that only a public body could be designated to exercise the functions of Natural England under this part. Obviously we've discussed this previously and debated it at committee, and while I absolutely recognise the noble Ladies concerns, I would like to reassure her that the policy expectation is absolutely that this power would only be ever used to designate a public body to carry out such functions, and that's our expectation.
However, the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord would Nancy mentioned this, sometimes there could be unforeseen circumstances where it could be appropriate for. A private.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A private. Body to take on some functions. In this part, my noble friend and In this part, my noble friend and others on a friend, Baroness Young, asked about examples. As I said in. asked about examples. As I said in. Committee, Natural National Parks, Committee, Natural National Parks, the MMO, for example, and others as appropriate. I mean, the noble Lady reminded us of the examples that I'd actually given earlier, but the actually given earlier, but the point is, is that this is not to do with shifting decision making away with shifting decision making away from natural England, and it's got nothing to do with them not having the capacity.
It's entirely to do the capacity. It's entirely to do with expertise and having the most appropriate body making these very appropriate body making these very important decisions. And that's why important decisions. And that's why we don't want to remove the possibility of it going to a public or a private body. But our or a private body. But our expectation is it would always be public bodies. That is the expectation, because it would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
unusual for a private body to have an expertise that a public body didn't have. Just if.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The expectation we don't seem. To have. Moved from committee stage, and that was the reason for bringing it that was the reason for bringing it back. If the expectation is that it will be a public body, then. I go will be a public body, then. I go along with what Baroness Young said. But it should be on the face of the bill. And I also support what Baroness Bennett said, that there Baroness Bennett said, that there are circumstances in which it would be entirely.
Inappropriate for it to be given to a private company. So be given to a private company. So that's the reason why that these that's the reason why that these powers that the powers are subjected are subject to the Secretary state's authorisation. It's not just Natural England's decision, it's subject to the Secretary state's authorisation and the use of the powers, also and the use of the powers, also subject to the affirmative procedure, so that Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation.
So that's why I'm hoping that the noble Lady will hoping that the noble Lady will understand that the ongoing role of Parliament will be sufficient, and that would allow the noble Lady to that would allow the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment. This is not just about a Natural England decision, so it's really important that that's clear.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that that's clear. I know this is against the rules. But I think this is such an. Important issue. I do. Not understand.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not understand. What government. Is saying because the bill is very, very clear. This actually says that the Secretary of State will make decisions about who the powers will be delegated to, not Natural England. If it was Natural England doing it, I'd be entirely content. But that's not what the bill says at the moment, so I'm unclear as to just exactly what that last couple
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of sentences meant that you just said. So I was trying to clarify it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I was trying to clarify it. The Secretary of State. Said. So. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Can I just ask? The minister is saying that the Secretary of State will consult on this, and that Parliament will be given an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parliament will be given an opportunity to comment. But what. I'm saying is, is that the only powers, any delegated powers from Natural England are subject to the Secretary of State's authorisation, Secretary of State's authorisation, and the use of this power is subject to the affirmative procedure. So Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. Thank you. I proposed designation. Thank you. I hope that that's that's clear. And I'll now turn briefly to the amendment 200 table by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, which adds a duty on local authorities to inform Natural England when making Natural England when making development plans of potential sites for development that may require an EDP.
As we mentioned on committee stage, Natural England are already required to have regard to relevant required to have regard to relevant development plans when producing an EDP. We've also ensured that local authorities will be required to authorities will be required to cooperate with Natural England during the process of preparing an EDP, which will ensure that information on site allocation can feed into the design of EDPs. We do share the noble Lords desire to ensure that EDPs dovetail into the wider planning system, and I do understand where the noble Lord is coming from with this amendment, but we believe that placing a further duty on local authorities to provide such information is unnecessary, given the bill requires Natural England to proactively consider such plans when designing an EDP.
So on that basis, I trust that the noble Lord is content to withdraw his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. my Lords question is that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords question is that amendment 68 be agreed to as many. Contrary not content, the contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Submitted to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Submitted to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thought you were moving. 69 amendment 69 Lord Murray Bloodworth, or as the case may be, Russell.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Young and for noble Lady Baroness Parminter about why. This amends being made now, why
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we feel that this is this is needed. And I. Just like to remind noble Lords that Natural England currently
**** Possible New Speaker ****
receives around. 22,500 town and country planning consultations every single year. consultations every single year. Many are low to medium risk, and about 30% of them don't actually need Natural England's input because
**** Possible New Speaker ****
need Natural England's input because they aren't a Fall outside the statutory remit. Under the Development Management Procedure Order, or don't relate. To its.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To its. General. Purpose.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are set out in the Note Act and Baroness. Palmer specifically asked about what was the problem that this was trying to solve. And it's mainly was trying to solve. And it's mainly because over the last decade, the volume of planning casework that has been received by Natural England has increased by 75% as there is nothing lurking behind it. It's just that the huge amount of extra work that Natural England now has to deal Natural England now has to deal with.
And because of this, there's less time available for the work that makes the most impact, such as that makes the most impact, such as shaping local plans, advising on major infrastructure and protecting major infrastructure and protecting nature. Where the risks are are greatest, and on local authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And my Noble friend Baroness Young and noble Lady Baroness Parminter. Both asked. About this. We are looking to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
About this. We are looking to work with with Ljs in advance of any change coming through and working through the details with them of through the details with them of exactly how it's going to work, what it's going to mean for them. So we are we are involving local are we are involving local authorities and regarding access to sufficient ecological advice, Natural England is going to continue Natural England is going to continue to provide advice to local planning authorities in cases where bespoke advice is necessary, which will advice is necessary, which will include any high risk and high opportunity casework.
And in addition, Natural England will still addition, Natural England will still be required to provide a response under the Development Management Procedure Order which is not Procedure Order which is not affected by this amendment, and this includes where a government is likely to effect a triple C, or would involve a loss of more than 20. Hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land. However, it is ultimately the local planning authorities themselves who planning authorities themselves who are responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of individual planning applications in line with planning applications in line with relevant planning policy and legislation, and this will remain legislation, and this will remain unchanged.
The noble Lord Lord Roper asked specifically about the Supreme Court judgement on the Fry case, which was handed down this morning. As he said, we just like to say that we are very grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarification. We will continue to drive the delivery of the homes and infrastructure that the country needs. But as we move forward with the bill we are debating today, we're clear that the planning system has to do everything it can to support sustainable development.
On his more detailed questions. We do really, it's only this morning we need time to analyse the decisions. I'm sure we will be coming back to this. Turning to the other amendments in this group. First of all, amendment 194, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Mackintosh, which would provide that only a public body could be designated to exercise the functions of Natural England under this part. Obviously we've discussed this previously and debated it at committee, and while I absolutely recognise the noble Ladies concerns, I would like to reassure her that the policy expectation is absolutely that this power would only be ever used to designate a public body to carry out such functions, and that's our expectation.
However, the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord would Nancy mentioned this, sometimes there could be unforeseen circumstances where it could be appropriate for. A private.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A private. Body to take on some functions. In this part, my noble friend and In this part, my noble friend and others on a friend, Baroness Young, asked about examples. As I said in. asked about examples. As I said in. Committee, Natural National Parks, Committee, Natural National Parks, the MMO, for example, and others as appropriate. I mean, the noble Lady reminded us of the examples that I'd actually given earlier, but the actually given earlier, but the point is, is that this is not to do with shifting decision making away with shifting decision making away from natural England, and it's got nothing to do with them not having the capacity.
It's entirely to do the capacity. It's entirely to do with expertise and having the most appropriate body making these very appropriate body making these very important decisions. And that's why important decisions. And that's why we don't want to remove the possibility of it going to a public or a private body. But our or a private body. But our expectation is it would always be public bodies. That is the expectation, because it would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
unusual for a private body to have an expertise that a public body didn't have. Just if.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The expectation we don't seem. To have. Moved from committee stage, and that was the reason for bringing it that was the reason for bringing it back. If the expectation is that it will be a public body, then. I go will be a public body, then. I go along with what Baroness Young said. But it should be on the face of the bill. And I also support what Baroness Bennett said, that there Baroness Bennett said, that there are circumstances in which it would be entirely.
Inappropriate for it to be given to a private company. So be given to a private company. So that's the reason why that these that's the reason why that these powers that the powers are subjected are subject to the Secretary state's authorisation. It's not just Natural England's decision, it's subject to the Secretary state's authorisation and the use of the powers, also and the use of the powers, also subject to the affirmative procedure, so that Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation.
So that's why I'm hoping that the noble Lady will hoping that the noble Lady will understand that the ongoing role of Parliament will be sufficient, and that would allow the noble Lady to that would allow the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment. This is not just about a Natural England decision, so it's really important that that's clear.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that that's clear. I know this is against the rules. But I think this is such an. Important issue. I do. Not understand.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not understand. What government. Is saying because the bill is very, very clear. This actually says that the Secretary of State will make decisions about who the powers will be delegated to, not Natural England. If it was Natural England doing it, I'd be entirely content. But that's not what the bill says at the moment, so I'm unclear as to just exactly what that last couple
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of sentences meant that you just said. So I was trying to clarify it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I was trying to clarify it. The Secretary of State. Said. So. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Can I just ask? The minister is saying that the Secretary of State will consult on this, and that Parliament will be given an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parliament will be given an opportunity to comment. But what. I'm saying is, is that the only powers, any delegated powers from Natural England are subject to the Secretary of State's authorisation, Secretary of State's authorisation, and the use of this power is subject to the affirmative procedure. So Parliament would have a say in any proposed designation. Thank you. I proposed designation. Thank you. I hope that that's that's clear. And I'll now turn briefly to the amendment 200 table by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, which adds a duty on local authorities to inform Natural England when making Natural England when making development plans of potential sites for development that may require an EDP.
As we mentioned on committee stage, Natural England are already required to have regard to relevant required to have regard to relevant development plans when producing an EDP. We've also ensured that local authorities will be required to authorities will be required to cooperate with Natural England during the process of preparing an EDP, which will ensure that information on site allocation can feed into the design of EDPs. We do share the noble Lords desire to ensure that EDPs dovetail into the wider planning system, and I do understand where the noble Lord is coming from with this amendment, but we believe that placing a further duty on local authorities to provide such information is unnecessary, given the bill requires Natural England to proactively consider such plans when designing an EDP.
So on that basis, I trust that the noble Lord is content to withdraw his
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. my Lords question is that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords question is that amendment 68 be agreed to as many. Contrary not content, the contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Submitted to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Submitted to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thought you were moving. 69 amendment 69 Lord Murray Bloodworth, or as the case may be, Russell.
19:13
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
or as the case may be, Russell. my Lords, I rise to. principles. Of planning, and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of planning, and. I speak to amendment number 69, tabled by Lord Murray.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
tabled by Lord Murray. And to which I've. Added my name. I also added my name to this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I also added my name to this. Amendment committee. My Lords, this amendment seeks to place mediation and other forms of alternative and other forms of alternative dispute resolution at the core of our planning system. This amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
represents a vital. Opportunity to. Transform a process. That is all too. Often adversarial.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And cumbersome. Into one that resolves disputes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
quickly, locally and constructively. Indeed. I. Might dare to say it's the power brought.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
brought. Us together. On this amendment. Which otherwise might be unlikely. My Lord is a local council. I've
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord is a local council. I've sat on the planning committee. I've witnessed. Firsthand how adversarial. Planning can be and how complex.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning can be and how complex. It is, and. Zero sum game. More importantly, I've worked. As a community mediator.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As a community mediator. And a case worker for a number. Of. Years, specialising in neighbour
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Years, specialising in neighbour disputes, and that has taught me a lot, which I. day.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
day. In fact, the first thing I learnt as a mediator is that the problem is never what people tell you. It never what people tell you. It actually is. Our current planning processes revolve around conflict
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and often forcing developers, zero. Sum. Games, and it can be very difficult for those involved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difficult for those involved. To escape. From those processes themselves. And this ultimately can lead to long And this ultimately can lead to long legal battles, rising costs. Delayed homes, immense frustration and broken systems. And my Lords, these are exactly the kind of problems that this bill is here. And the government states that they want to resolve. So this amendment is here to try and offer a way forward. And my wish, really, in speaking again to Lord Murray's amendment, is that this I really want this government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to be open to considering having a large scale trial. On. Mediation so that adequate data can be found so that the government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can make an. Assessment as to the true usefulness of mediation. In in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In in. The English planning system. At committee, the Minister rejected these this amendment on. A number.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A number. it. Was not new, and the. Government had explored this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Government had explored this before. And that might be true, but I believe when it was explored done.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fully and properly. Mediation. my Lords is. Embedded in the Scottish system, and it. Has been. Since.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Since. 1997, with updated planning. Guidance in. 20 2021. There. It's.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's. A voluntary process and the Scottish authorities have found that it has been very useful at.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it has been very useful at. complex. Cases, in developer community discussions. Research conducted.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
discussions. Research conducted. has. Found 65% of. Mediation Scottish. Cases settled successfully.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cases settled successfully. In. 2024, saving vast.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amounts of money for courts, for delays, for helping to get Infrastructure and Homes bill. Equally, the Scottish Government has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Equally, the Scottish Government has commissioned independent research was. Used, fostered. Trust.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reduce conflict and help. To achieve earlier agreements. Compared to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Compared to. Traditional legal routes. The minister also argued at committee that the statutory duty to regard mediation guidance would be inappropriate across planning activities, especially in application determinations, where application determinations, where consensus is not always achievable. fundamentally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fundamentally. Misunderstands the point of mediation and its very nature. It's not about forcing consensus, it's not about forcing consensus, it's about fostering dialogue, allowing these conversations to take place so
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that solutions can be found there. No solutions. Because. The parties own them and take part in them, are more likely.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
part in them, are more likely. To last and stay the distance. The minister also suggested. The existing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The existing. Appeal processes. Involving independent inspectors might provide better transparency. And, you know, better transparency. And, you know, I want to recognise the importance of transparency, but equally confidentiality is also a strength in the in the mediation process, allowing frank dialogue free of reputational damage, where conversations can happen outside of that public spotlight and where.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that public spotlight and where. Agreements are reached, they can. Often be made. Formal and public. So mediation complements these appeal processes. It doesn't replace it. The minister also suggested that local planning authorities already engage positively with applicants. Well, I don't disagree with that, but there's no clear guidance and therefore that interaction lacks consistency and embedding mediation into the planning framework at all for all local. Authorities and supporting it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Properly. Would make those systems more. Efficient and ensure that they Efficient and ensure that they worked better. My Lord, really, I will draw it there to a close because because of the late hour. But I really urge ministers to reconsider this and to take the time
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reconsider this and to take the time to look at a trial for mediation. I think. If we desire a planning system that is quicker, it's fair, it's that is quicker, it's fair, it's more humane and is properly equipped and tooled up with what we need to get these staff moving, then the get these staff moving, then the government should seriously look at supporting this. Very, very briefly, I turn to the other two amendments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I turn to the other two amendments in this group, amendment. 119. Yet to be tabled by the Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yet to be tabled by the Baroness Neville-Rolfe, would support. We support the intent of this amendment. It's about ensuring that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. It's about ensuring that public bodies. Discharging duties under this act make consider. Pay consideration.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Pay consideration. To the difficulties often faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning when engaging with the planning system. What's not to like with that? We support that. Amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that? We support that. Amendment. 103 by Lord banner, also supported by Lord Scott and Lord Jameson. A Principles of proportionality and planning decision makers, applicants, consultees. And it's about ensuring that things are more focussed and effective for public participation. And again, that's something that we would be minded to support. With that, I move the amendment and I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. No, sorry. 51 insert. The following new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
51 insert. The following new clause is printed on the Marshall List. my Lords, as time is short, I
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
or as the case may be, Russell. my Lords, I rise to. principles. Of planning, and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of planning, and. I speak to amendment number 69, tabled by Lord Murray.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
tabled by Lord Murray. And to which I've. Added my name. I also added my name to this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I also added my name to this. Amendment committee. My Lords, this amendment seeks to place mediation and other forms of alternative and other forms of alternative dispute resolution at the core of our planning system. This amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
represents a vital. Opportunity to. Transform a process. That is all too. Often adversarial.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And cumbersome. Into one that resolves disputes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
quickly, locally and constructively. Indeed. I. Might dare to say it's the power brought.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
brought. Us together. On this amendment. Which otherwise might be unlikely. My Lord is a local council. I've
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord is a local council. I've sat on the planning committee. I've witnessed. Firsthand how adversarial. Planning can be and how complex.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning can be and how complex. It is, and. Zero sum game. More importantly, I've worked. As a community mediator.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As a community mediator. And a case worker for a number. Of. Years, specialising in neighbour
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Years, specialising in neighbour disputes, and that has taught me a lot, which I. day.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
day. In fact, the first thing I learnt as a mediator is that the problem is never what people tell you. It never what people tell you. It actually is. Our current planning processes revolve around conflict
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and often forcing developers, zero. Sum. Games, and it can be very difficult for those involved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difficult for those involved. To escape. From those processes themselves. And this ultimately can lead to long And this ultimately can lead to long legal battles, rising costs. Delayed homes, immense frustration and broken systems. And my Lords, these are exactly the kind of problems that this bill is here. And the government states that they want to resolve. So this amendment is here to try and offer a way forward. And my wish, really, in speaking again to Lord Murray's amendment, is that this I really want this government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to be open to considering having a large scale trial. On. Mediation so that adequate data can be found so that the government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can make an. Assessment as to the true usefulness of mediation. In in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In in. The English planning system. At committee, the Minister rejected these this amendment on. A number.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A number. it. Was not new, and the. Government had explored this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Government had explored this before. And that might be true, but I believe when it was explored done.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fully and properly. Mediation. my Lords is. Embedded in the Scottish system, and it. Has been. Since.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Since. 1997, with updated planning. Guidance in. 20 2021. There. It's.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's. A voluntary process and the Scottish authorities have found that it has been very useful at.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it has been very useful at. complex. Cases, in developer community discussions. Research conducted.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
discussions. Research conducted. has. Found 65% of. Mediation Scottish. Cases settled successfully.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cases settled successfully. In. 2024, saving vast.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amounts of money for courts, for delays, for helping to get Infrastructure and Homes bill. Equally, the Scottish Government has
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Equally, the Scottish Government has commissioned independent research was. Used, fostered. Trust.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reduce conflict and help. To achieve earlier agreements. Compared to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Compared to. Traditional legal routes. The minister also argued at committee that the statutory duty to regard mediation guidance would be inappropriate across planning activities, especially in application determinations, where application determinations, where consensus is not always achievable. fundamentally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fundamentally. Misunderstands the point of mediation and its very nature. It's not about forcing consensus, it's not about forcing consensus, it's about fostering dialogue, allowing these conversations to take place so
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that solutions can be found there. No solutions. Because. The parties own them and take part in them, are more likely.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
part in them, are more likely. To last and stay the distance. The minister also suggested. The existing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The existing. Appeal processes. Involving independent inspectors might provide better transparency. And, you know, better transparency. And, you know, I want to recognise the importance of transparency, but equally confidentiality is also a strength in the in the mediation process, allowing frank dialogue free of reputational damage, where conversations can happen outside of that public spotlight and where.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that public spotlight and where. Agreements are reached, they can. Often be made. Formal and public. So mediation complements these appeal processes. It doesn't replace it. The minister also suggested that local planning authorities already engage positively with applicants. Well, I don't disagree with that, but there's no clear guidance and therefore that interaction lacks consistency and embedding mediation into the planning framework at all for all local. Authorities and supporting it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Properly. Would make those systems more. Efficient and ensure that they Efficient and ensure that they worked better. My Lord, really, I will draw it there to a close because because of the late hour. But I really urge ministers to reconsider this and to take the time
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reconsider this and to take the time to look at a trial for mediation. I think. If we desire a planning system that is quicker, it's fair, it's that is quicker, it's fair, it's more humane and is properly equipped and tooled up with what we need to get these staff moving, then the get these staff moving, then the government should seriously look at supporting this. Very, very briefly, I turn to the other two amendments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I turn to the other two amendments in this group, amendment. 119. Yet to be tabled by the Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yet to be tabled by the Baroness Neville-Rolfe, would support. We support the intent of this amendment. It's about ensuring that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. It's about ensuring that public bodies. Discharging duties under this act make consider. Pay consideration.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Pay consideration. To the difficulties often faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning when engaging with the planning system. What's not to like with that? We support that. Amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that? We support that. Amendment. 103 by Lord banner, also supported by Lord Scott and Lord Jameson. A Principles of proportionality and planning decision makers, applicants, consultees. And it's about ensuring that things are more focussed and effective for public participation. And again, that's something that we would be minded to support. With that, I move the amendment and I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. No, sorry. 51 insert. The following new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
51 insert. The following new clause is printed on the Marshall List. my Lords, as time is short, I
19:19
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, as time is short, I will simply focus on the lifeblood of local communities, that is, small enterprises or SMEs as we call them. enterprises or SMEs as we call them. A journey of a thousand league starts with a single step, we are told, and equally major corporations driving economic growth did not start as large enterprises. And that's why I always seek to think indeed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Why I. Supported the noble Lady Lady Thornhill's amendment on planning fees. And I trust the government will deliver on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government will deliver on the lowest possible fees for SMEs. My amendment 119. Which the noble Earl Lord Russell
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which the noble Earl Lord Russell on. The constructive.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Discussions we all had with the Bill ministers. wish. To support SMEs and small
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To support SMEs and small developments in the planning system. The fact is that such enterprises The fact is that such enterprises are at a disadvantage in our system. We need to do something about it and we need to bring about a culture
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we need to bring about a culture change in the attitude to SMEs. It's a chilling fact. That, according to the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That, according to the. Government's SME plan, SMB. Housebuilders share of the market has. Declined from 39%.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Declined from 39%. In 1988 to 10% in 2020. And yet they contribute.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And yet they contribute. Disproportionately to local communities and. To local employment, and help to. Fill the skills. Gap in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Gap in. Construction. My committee stage amendment focussed on. Giving new guidance to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Natural England, because I want. Them to support smaller players. And to take. A more balanced view than their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
current remit permits. But on reflection, I thought ministers. Might prefer a more general duty.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which would give SMEs a special role in the whole. Planning system. This would require all involved
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This would require all involved to have regard not the. Strongest of words. To the fact that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the fact that. SMEs may, in practice, face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process. And to consider
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planning process. And to consider again a gentle word, whether such. Barriers can be removed or reduced.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reduced. It's derived. From a similar. Kuomintang. In which.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In which. Both myself and the noble Lady. Payment of others were involved. This was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Widely welcomed. By businesses and by charities. In my amendment, I've kept. The. Definition of such enterprises
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Definition of such enterprises modest to make it more acceptable. Between 1. And 9 residential dwellings, but I'd be happy.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'd be happy. For the government to amend this at Third Reading or ping pong. I feel that the role of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I feel that the role of. SMEs in development. Is a serious. Omission from this bill. It's bad for community cohesion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for community cohesion. And a lost opportunity. For growth. The government said in their own small business plan. That accelerating.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That accelerating. The growth of. SMEs could boost growth by 1% a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
heard. From. The Minister and committee does not cut the mustard. An example with.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The requirement to consider. The viability of. Development in making levy regulations. I can't see
**** Possible New Speaker ****
making levy regulations. I can't see how this would make a. is. That none of the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Considerations nor the financial. Support that. Is. Mentioned. adverse.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Trend. In SME housebuilding. Or changing the culture. In local. Authorities and in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In local. Authorities and in agencies, let alone in Marshall Street. Unless the Minister can give an. Undertaking to bring forward a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Undertaking to bring forward a suitable proposal. On SMEs in. The planning process.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Itself, I will want to test the opinion of the House when we reach
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that clause. I strongly support the this amendment 119, and I agree with the
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, as time is short, I will simply focus on the lifeblood of local communities, that is, small enterprises or SMEs as we call them. enterprises or SMEs as we call them. A journey of a thousand league starts with a single step, we are told, and equally major corporations driving economic growth did not start as large enterprises. And that's why I always seek to think indeed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Why I. Supported the noble Lady Lady Thornhill's amendment on planning fees. And I trust the government will deliver on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government will deliver on the lowest possible fees for SMEs. My amendment 119. Which the noble Earl Lord Russell
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which the noble Earl Lord Russell on. The constructive.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Discussions we all had with the Bill ministers. wish. To support SMEs and small
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To support SMEs and small developments in the planning system. The fact is that such enterprises The fact is that such enterprises are at a disadvantage in our system. We need to do something about it and we need to bring about a culture
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we need to bring about a culture change in the attitude to SMEs. It's a chilling fact. That, according to the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That, according to the. Government's SME plan, SMB. Housebuilders share of the market has. Declined from 39%.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Declined from 39%. In 1988 to 10% in 2020. And yet they contribute.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And yet they contribute. Disproportionately to local communities and. To local employment, and help to. Fill the skills. Gap in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Gap in. Construction. My committee stage amendment focussed on. Giving new guidance to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Natural England, because I want. Them to support smaller players. And to take. A more balanced view than their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
current remit permits. But on reflection, I thought ministers. Might prefer a more general duty.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which would give SMEs a special role in the whole. Planning system. This would require all involved
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This would require all involved to have regard not the. Strongest of words. To the fact that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the fact that. SMEs may, in practice, face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process. And to consider
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planning process. And to consider again a gentle word, whether such. Barriers can be removed or reduced.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reduced. It's derived. From a similar. Kuomintang. In which.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In which. Both myself and the noble Lady. Payment of others were involved. This was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Widely welcomed. By businesses and by charities. In my amendment, I've kept. The. Definition of such enterprises
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Definition of such enterprises modest to make it more acceptable. Between 1. And 9 residential dwellings, but I'd be happy.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'd be happy. For the government to amend this at Third Reading or ping pong. I feel that the role of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I feel that the role of. SMEs in development. Is a serious. Omission from this bill. It's bad for community cohesion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for community cohesion. And a lost opportunity. For growth. The government said in their own small business plan. That accelerating.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That accelerating. The growth of. SMEs could boost growth by 1% a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
heard. From. The Minister and committee does not cut the mustard. An example with.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The requirement to consider. The viability of. Development in making levy regulations. I can't see
**** Possible New Speaker ****
making levy regulations. I can't see how this would make a. is. That none of the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Considerations nor the financial. Support that. Is. Mentioned. adverse.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Trend. In SME housebuilding. Or changing the culture. In local. Authorities and in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In local. Authorities and in agencies, let alone in Marshall Street. Unless the Minister can give an. Undertaking to bring forward a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Undertaking to bring forward a suitable proposal. On SMEs in. The planning process.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Itself, I will want to test the opinion of the House when we reach
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that clause. I strongly support the this amendment 119, and I agree with the
19:23
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
amendment 119, and I agree with the excellent case set up by my Noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe. My support comes from two cases in my constituency some years ago, although it caused by the forerunner of Natural England, I think it was the Countryside Commission at the time, then the Countryside Agency before being amalgamated into Natural England. Now these two cases simply demonstrate the point. I think my noble friend Baroness Rock has been made. There were a couple of years apart that the issues were the same, and they've annoyed me to this day because I was absolutely powerless to help small businesses in my constituency.
The first was Create Independent Bridleway and later a national trail alongside Hadrian's Wall, both of which had many miles from my constituency. Now some of that opened in 2002, some in 2006, some is not open yet. But the approval process in principle started either in the late 80s or 90s. The plans were to make these national trails and encourage thousands more people to use them. No bad thing in themselves, and I like the idea local farmers were generally not opposed, since they thought they could get involved in providing services to the walkers and riders, farmers and householders along Hadrian's Wall said that without toilet facilities en route behind their stone walls had become toilets with no cafeterias for miles.
Sandwich wrappers and uneaten food was dumped in their fields. And what a hazard to sheep, they said it would be good for them if they could convert a barn into a coffee shop or toilets, as a quid pro quo for letting thousands of people march over the land. It seemed a very good idea to me at the time to assist small farmers in this way. This was in the wilds of northern Cumbria, near the Scottish border, where some farms had more rushes and grass.
It used to be called marginal land, but the EU terminology is severely disadvantaged. Area the lush land of East Anglia. It is not, and they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
need every opportunity there to make money and survive. So. my Lords, farmers on the on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, farmers on the on the route of the proposed Pennine Bridleway, also wanted to convert some barns into tack rooms,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
providing food and water for people and horses and parking. Space for their trailers. Only a few riders would want to traverse few riders would want to traverse the whole length of it, or at least the stretches which were open, most willing to park up and ride a route willing to park up and ride a route of about a loop of about 15 miles or so. Again, a reasonable suggestion, I thought, which would benefit I thought, which would benefit everyone walkers, riders, the local farmers who would have these would have them on their land and the have them on their land and the environment, which would not be destroyed by rubbish.
But my Lords, that was not to be. The Countryside that was not to be. The Countryside Commission said nothing to do with us. Their job was the trails in the bridleway, and they did not care about helping the rural businesses along the route. It was purely a local planning matter for a body set local planning matter for a body set up with a remit of helping rural businesses. I was a poll and anger. It would not even publish a statement suggesting to local councils that it might be a jolly good idea to support planning applications which would provide applications which would provide those small infrastructure development.
My approach is to the local councils, where they couldn't comment until an official planning application was received. Other were not bend the rules to look favourably on them in principle. So, my Lords, I ended up opposing some things I thought were a good thing because the recalcitrance of government bodies and local councils who would do absolutely nothing to help small businesses in their own patch. I may be wrong, my Lords, but to this day I do not think that a single farm or private building on either of those routes has been given planning permission for even a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
simple tea room. That's what I support, my noble friend. My lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My lord. On a three, and the name of Lord banner, who I see is now in his place.
The first was Create Independent Bridleway and later a national trail alongside Hadrian's Wall, both of which had many miles from my constituency. Now some of that opened in 2002, some in 2006, some is not open yet. But the approval process in principle started either in the late 80s or 90s. The plans were to make these national trails and encourage thousands more people to use them. No bad thing in themselves, and I like the idea local farmers were generally not opposed, since they thought they could get involved in providing services to the walkers and riders, farmers and householders along Hadrian's Wall said that without toilet facilities en route behind their stone walls had become toilets with no cafeterias for miles.
Sandwich wrappers and uneaten food was dumped in their fields. And what a hazard to sheep, they said it would be good for them if they could convert a barn into a coffee shop or toilets, as a quid pro quo for letting thousands of people march over the land. It seemed a very good idea to me at the time to assist small farmers in this way. This was in the wilds of northern Cumbria, near the Scottish border, where some farms had more rushes and grass.
It used to be called marginal land, but the EU terminology is severely disadvantaged. Area the lush land of East Anglia. It is not, and they
**** Possible New Speaker ****
need every opportunity there to make money and survive. So. my Lords, farmers on the on the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, farmers on the on the route of the proposed Pennine Bridleway, also wanted to convert some barns into tack rooms,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
providing food and water for people and horses and parking. Space for their trailers. Only a few riders would want to traverse few riders would want to traverse the whole length of it, or at least the stretches which were open, most willing to park up and ride a route willing to park up and ride a route of about a loop of about 15 miles or so. Again, a reasonable suggestion, I thought, which would benefit I thought, which would benefit everyone walkers, riders, the local farmers who would have these would have them on their land and the have them on their land and the environment, which would not be destroyed by rubbish.
But my Lords, that was not to be. The Countryside that was not to be. The Countryside Commission said nothing to do with us. Their job was the trails in the bridleway, and they did not care about helping the rural businesses along the route. It was purely a local planning matter for a body set local planning matter for a body set up with a remit of helping rural businesses. I was a poll and anger. It would not even publish a statement suggesting to local councils that it might be a jolly good idea to support planning applications which would provide applications which would provide those small infrastructure development.
My approach is to the local councils, where they couldn't comment until an official planning application was received. Other were not bend the rules to look favourably on them in principle. So, my Lords, I ended up opposing some things I thought were a good thing because the recalcitrance of government bodies and local councils who would do absolutely nothing to help small businesses in their own patch. I may be wrong, my Lords, but to this day I do not think that a single farm or private building on either of those routes has been given planning permission for even a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
simple tea room. That's what I support, my noble friend. My lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My lord. On a three, and the name of Lord banner, who I see is now in his place.
19:26
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
place. On proportionality in planning committee. His amendment was rejected out of hand. This is a. Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill. That was promoted by several departments. We spent the last. Hour with the. Noble Lady Baroness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady Baroness. Hayman from Defra, justifying Government Amendment 68 strictly on Government Amendment 68 strictly on the grounds of proportionality. It's been good governance, effective value for money and so forth. And so I say to the noble Baroness Taylor from the other department, the government can't have it both ways. Having pressed government 68 so hard on the positive. Angle of proportionality, and I challenged her to accept 103, which makes exactly the same grounds. And of course, from Lord Banner's perspective rather than the other.
My Lords, sir, I would wish. Briefly to support amendment 69 for the reasons.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Advanced by the noble Earl. I just really want to raise one
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
place. On proportionality in planning committee. His amendment was rejected out of hand. This is a. Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill. That was promoted by several departments. We spent the last. Hour with the. Noble Lady Baroness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady Baroness. Hayman from Defra, justifying Government Amendment 68 strictly on Government Amendment 68 strictly on the grounds of proportionality. It's been good governance, effective value for money and so forth. And so I say to the noble Baroness Taylor from the other department, the government can't have it both ways. Having pressed government 68 so hard on the positive. Angle of proportionality, and I challenged her to accept 103, which makes exactly the same grounds. And of course, from Lord Banner's perspective rather than the other.
My Lords, sir, I would wish. Briefly to support amendment 69 for the reasons.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Advanced by the noble Earl. I just really want to raise one
19:27
Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I just really want to raise one question. The amendment provides or would provide for guidance promoting use of mediation. I'd like to know whether the expectation of that amendment, if agreed, is that mediation should become mandatory, as is really the case in much civil litigation. And if it is to be mandatory, what would be the sanctions for non-compliance with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the direction for mediation. And point? I welcome the question. It's not
Lord Meston (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I just really want to raise one question. The amendment provides or would provide for guidance promoting use of mediation. I'd like to know whether the expectation of that amendment, if agreed, is that mediation should become mandatory, as is really the case in much civil litigation. And if it is to be mandatory, what would be the sanctions for non-compliance with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the direction for mediation. And point? I welcome the question. It's not
19:28
19:28
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
my Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 103, tabled by my Noble friend Lord Bunner and co-signed by myself and my Noble friend Lord Jameson. At present, planning processes have become anything but proportionate. The precaution precautionary principle is too often applied as though it requires zero risk. Environmental statements run to thousands of pages. Inspectors demand reams of questions. Statutory consultees require unnecessary detail, even at outline stage, and consultants fearful of liability produce overlong reports of few people will ever read.
None of this my Lords improves the quality of decisions, but it clogs up the systems, slows delivery and undermines confidence. This amendment would not abandon the precautionary principle. It would prepare preserve it in its proper sense, ensuring no regression on environmental protections while restoring a degree of pragmatism and common sense. It will help to strip out duplication, shorten unnecessary process, and empower the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure flexibility and future proofing. At Committee my Lords, the minister conceded the main point.
She openly accepted that proportionality is desirable and the system has indeed become overly complex. In doing so, she essentially validated the case for this amendment before rejecting it. That position is not sustainable if we agree the system is disproportionate, then we should act to correct it. This amendment does exactly that. It embeds proportionality into planning as a guiding principle, striking the right balance between proper scrutiny, environmental responsibility, and the need to deliver homes and infrastructure in a timely way.
And my Lords, when the time comes, we intend to divide the House on this amendment. I now turn to amendment 119, tabled by my Noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe. This amendment seeks to ensure that the public body is discharging duties under this act, give due consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system. My Lords small and medium sized developers are the backbone of our construction industry. They bring diversity, innovation and local knowledge to development, qualities that large national housebuilders, however efficient, cannot always replicate.
These firms are essential to revitalising brownfield sites, supporting local supply chains and maintaining competition in the market that has for far too long been dominated by just a handful of large players. Yet the reality my Lords is that the planning system too often works against them. Smaller developers face disproportionate administrative burdens and unpredictable decision making, and rising compliance costs that are far less able. They are far less able to absorb than their larger counterparts. Delays in processing applications can prove fatal for firms operating on tight margins.
This amendment, therefore, is a modest but meaningful step towards recognising those challenges and encouraging more level playing field. Public authorities should be required to consider how their policies and their practices affect small, smaller operators not as an afterthought but as a matter of good economic sense. My Lords, if my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe were to test the opinion of the House on this amendment, we'd be minded to support her.
None of this my Lords improves the quality of decisions, but it clogs up the systems, slows delivery and undermines confidence. This amendment would not abandon the precautionary principle. It would prepare preserve it in its proper sense, ensuring no regression on environmental protections while restoring a degree of pragmatism and common sense. It will help to strip out duplication, shorten unnecessary process, and empower the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure flexibility and future proofing. At Committee my Lords, the minister conceded the main point.
She openly accepted that proportionality is desirable and the system has indeed become overly complex. In doing so, she essentially validated the case for this amendment before rejecting it. That position is not sustainable if we agree the system is disproportionate, then we should act to correct it. This amendment does exactly that. It embeds proportionality into planning as a guiding principle, striking the right balance between proper scrutiny, environmental responsibility, and the need to deliver homes and infrastructure in a timely way.
And my Lords, when the time comes, we intend to divide the House on this amendment. I now turn to amendment 119, tabled by my Noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe. This amendment seeks to ensure that the public body is discharging duties under this act, give due consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system. My Lords small and medium sized developers are the backbone of our construction industry. They bring diversity, innovation and local knowledge to development, qualities that large national housebuilders, however efficient, cannot always replicate.
These firms are essential to revitalising brownfield sites, supporting local supply chains and maintaining competition in the market that has for far too long been dominated by just a handful of large players. Yet the reality my Lords is that the planning system too often works against them. Smaller developers face disproportionate administrative burdens and unpredictable decision making, and rising compliance costs that are far less able. They are far less able to absorb than their larger counterparts. Delays in processing applications can prove fatal for firms operating on tight margins.
This amendment, therefore, is a modest but meaningful step towards recognising those challenges and encouraging more level playing field. Public authorities should be required to consider how their policies and their practices affect small, smaller operators not as an afterthought but as a matter of good economic sense. My Lords, if my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe were to test the opinion of the House on this amendment, we'd be minded to support her.
19:32
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)
my Lords, I will turn first. noble Lord Murray and moved by the noble Earl Lord Russell, and this amendment seeks to introduce statutory guidance on mediation and dispute resolution into the planning system. Firstly, I wanted to thank the noble Lord Murray for his continued engagement with us on this matter. Since the committee and I have had a meeting with him this week on this subject. He is a passionate advocate for mediation, and I appreciate the insights he has shared on this issue.
I think we both want the same thing. We want fewer disputes on matters of planning. There are certainly areas where mediation and alternative dispute resolution can play a valuable role in the planning system. For example, on the compulsory purchase in section 106, agreements were negotiating and reaching consensus is required. However, we feel that third party mediation will not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. For example, it would not be applicable to planning decisions, as planning law requires the decision maker to consider all relevant planning matters set out in the local development Plan and weigh this with other material planning considerations.
Furthermore, a statutory approach to mediation may add a further layer to an already complex planning framework. Much of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what we are both seeking to achieve can be done through. National. Planning, policy and guidance. Our national planning policy framework actively encourages proactive and positive engagement between applicants and local planning authorities, including pre-application consultation. This is a well-established part of the system, and only 4% of all planning decisions lead to an appeal on decisions lead to an appeal on larger scale schemes. Planning performance agreements have also played an increasingly valuable role, and we actively encourage them as a tool to assist cooperation between all parties.
The noble Earl between all parties. The noble Earl Russell are quoted the example of the Scotland the way that Scotland the Scotland the way that Scotland deal with mediation. Section 286A of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 enables Scottish Ministers to publish guidance promoting the use of mediation and promoting the use of mediation and planning. Circular to 2021 sets out this guidance. Importantly, this guidance promotes the use of mediation rather than requiring its use. It clearly states the use of mediation is not a requirement on mediation is not a requirement on local planning authorities.
We don't feel that we need legislation to encourage the use of mediation, encourage the use of mediation, especially for all planning activities. And as I said, there are examples of where we have used guidance to encourage the use of mediation, particularly on compulsory purchase orders. Turning to amendment 103 from the noble Lord banner and moved by the noble Baroness Lady Scott, this seeks to give decision makers, applicants, consultees and the courts confidence that in the planning system, less can be more.
I want to thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter. He will know we are taking forward regulatory reforms to this regime, removing the need for mandatory pre-application consultation and overhauling the permission stage for judicial review, which we've discussed earlier today. Elsewhere, we're introducing the new Nature Restoration Fund, reviewing the role of statutory consultees, removing the statutory consultation requirements relating to the preliminary environmental information within the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations for Infrastructure planning, and examining the regulatory and policy requirements for small and medium sized sites.
So I want to again reassure him we agree with the sentiment of this amendment in removing unnecessary layers of duplication, and our actions show this. However, as I said at committee, we still do not think that this amendment, though well intentioned, will provide the remedy for the lack of proportionality in our planning system. It does create a new legal test for decision makers, which risks more opportunities for legal challenge and more grounds for disagreements. We believe it's better to promote proportionality through regulatory and policy reforms, which I know the noble Lord is aware we're committed to.
It will be a key principle driving our new national planning policy framework, which we are committed to publishing the consultation later this year. My Lords, I turn now to amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I'm sure she will know that we appreciate the intention of the amendment and recognise the crucial role that small and medium sized businesses play in driving up housebuilding rates, particularly in supporting a diverse housing market and responding to local housing needs, and also supporting faster build out rates.
We also recognise that this part of the sector has faced incredibly significant challenges in recent years, and that the planning system has become disproportionate, which contributes to delays, costs and uncertainty. However, we consider this amendment is unnecessary and duplicates the emerging reforms to the planning system. The amendment will create a statutory obligation for public bodies to have regard to SME specific issues. We do not feel this approach is necessary or proportionate. It would impose a legal duty on authorities to demonstrate how they've considered SME concerns and barriers when exercising their planning and development functions.
This creates a new burden for local planning authorities and other public bodies, and will also further complicate our complex planning system and create a new avenue by which legal challenges could be brought by two decisions. That said, I do want to ensure noble Lords that the government is committed to improving the experience of SMEs in the planning system. In May this year, we published a site, Thresholds Working paper, seeking views on how we might better support small site development and enable SME housebuilders to grow.
This paper proposed introducing a medium site definition, alongside a range of proposals to support a more simplified and streamlined planning process. So for applications within this new medium threshold, we're considering simplifying bag requirements, exploring exempting these sites from proposed building safety levy, exempting from build out transparency proposals, maintaining a 13 week statutory time period. The determination, including the delegation of some of these developments to officers as part of the national Scheme of delegation. Ensuring referrals to statutory consultees are proportionate and rely on general guidance which is readily available online where possible.
Uplifting the Commission in principle threshold and minimising validation and statutory information requirements. We are currently analysing all the comments received on this working paper, which will inform a consultation on more detailed proposals ahead of finalising our policy approach. An amendment seeking to define SMEs and an alternative way, and adding further steps to the process, risks adding further complexity to the planning system and undermining the efforts to support proportionality. And for these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw the amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh my Lord, I thank the Minister for the response. I think this has been an interesting and, dare I say,
I think we both want the same thing. We want fewer disputes on matters of planning. There are certainly areas where mediation and alternative dispute resolution can play a valuable role in the planning system. For example, on the compulsory purchase in section 106, agreements were negotiating and reaching consensus is required. However, we feel that third party mediation will not be appropriate or necessary for all planning activities. For example, it would not be applicable to planning decisions, as planning law requires the decision maker to consider all relevant planning matters set out in the local development Plan and weigh this with other material planning considerations.
Furthermore, a statutory approach to mediation may add a further layer to an already complex planning framework. Much of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what we are both seeking to achieve can be done through. National. Planning, policy and guidance. Our national planning policy framework actively encourages proactive and positive engagement between applicants and local planning authorities, including pre-application consultation. This is a well-established part of the system, and only 4% of all planning decisions lead to an appeal on decisions lead to an appeal on larger scale schemes. Planning performance agreements have also played an increasingly valuable role, and we actively encourage them as a tool to assist cooperation between all parties.
The noble Earl between all parties. The noble Earl Russell are quoted the example of the Scotland the way that Scotland the Scotland the way that Scotland deal with mediation. Section 286A of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 enables Scottish Ministers to publish guidance promoting the use of mediation and promoting the use of mediation and planning. Circular to 2021 sets out this guidance. Importantly, this guidance promotes the use of mediation rather than requiring its use. It clearly states the use of mediation is not a requirement on mediation is not a requirement on local planning authorities.
We don't feel that we need legislation to encourage the use of mediation, encourage the use of mediation, especially for all planning activities. And as I said, there are examples of where we have used guidance to encourage the use of mediation, particularly on compulsory purchase orders. Turning to amendment 103 from the noble Lord banner and moved by the noble Baroness Lady Scott, this seeks to give decision makers, applicants, consultees and the courts confidence that in the planning system, less can be more.
I want to thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this matter. He will know we are taking forward regulatory reforms to this regime, removing the need for mandatory pre-application consultation and overhauling the permission stage for judicial review, which we've discussed earlier today. Elsewhere, we're introducing the new Nature Restoration Fund, reviewing the role of statutory consultees, removing the statutory consultation requirements relating to the preliminary environmental information within the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations for Infrastructure planning, and examining the regulatory and policy requirements for small and medium sized sites.
So I want to again reassure him we agree with the sentiment of this amendment in removing unnecessary layers of duplication, and our actions show this. However, as I said at committee, we still do not think that this amendment, though well intentioned, will provide the remedy for the lack of proportionality in our planning system. It does create a new legal test for decision makers, which risks more opportunities for legal challenge and more grounds for disagreements. We believe it's better to promote proportionality through regulatory and policy reforms, which I know the noble Lord is aware we're committed to.
It will be a key principle driving our new national planning policy framework, which we are committed to publishing the consultation later this year. My Lords, I turn now to amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I'm sure she will know that we appreciate the intention of the amendment and recognise the crucial role that small and medium sized businesses play in driving up housebuilding rates, particularly in supporting a diverse housing market and responding to local housing needs, and also supporting faster build out rates.
We also recognise that this part of the sector has faced incredibly significant challenges in recent years, and that the planning system has become disproportionate, which contributes to delays, costs and uncertainty. However, we consider this amendment is unnecessary and duplicates the emerging reforms to the planning system. The amendment will create a statutory obligation for public bodies to have regard to SME specific issues. We do not feel this approach is necessary or proportionate. It would impose a legal duty on authorities to demonstrate how they've considered SME concerns and barriers when exercising their planning and development functions.
This creates a new burden for local planning authorities and other public bodies, and will also further complicate our complex planning system and create a new avenue by which legal challenges could be brought by two decisions. That said, I do want to ensure noble Lords that the government is committed to improving the experience of SMEs in the planning system. In May this year, we published a site, Thresholds Working paper, seeking views on how we might better support small site development and enable SME housebuilders to grow.
This paper proposed introducing a medium site definition, alongside a range of proposals to support a more simplified and streamlined planning process. So for applications within this new medium threshold, we're considering simplifying bag requirements, exploring exempting these sites from proposed building safety levy, exempting from build out transparency proposals, maintaining a 13 week statutory time period. The determination, including the delegation of some of these developments to officers as part of the national Scheme of delegation. Ensuring referrals to statutory consultees are proportionate and rely on general guidance which is readily available online where possible.
Uplifting the Commission in principle threshold and minimising validation and statutory information requirements. We are currently analysing all the comments received on this working paper, which will inform a consultation on more detailed proposals ahead of finalising our policy approach. An amendment seeking to define SMEs and an alternative way, and adding further steps to the process, risks adding further complexity to the planning system and undermining the efforts to support proportionality. And for these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw the amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh my Lord, I thank the Minister for the response. I think this has been an interesting and, dare I say,
19:39
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
a different group of amendments. I think it's always to look at principles and particularly first principles that underline and guide what it is we do and why we do it. So I welcome the Minister's comments. I take her points about mediation. I take her point that we all want fewer disputes, that we share all those things in common. I will go away and think about the difference between how what more could be done with guidance. I guess the point for me is that we really want the government to go a little bit further and actually support trials and roll outs to see what more can be done to incorporate better incorporate this as a tool within our planning system.
Turning to 119, I think it's really important that we raise these issues, I think across the House, the need to do more for small and medium sized developers is widely felt across all parties. I recognise what the government has done on the site threshold paper and I think it's it it's welcome that the government is looking at the results that have come back from that. I think the House as a whole would welcome further developments from now. Turning to number 103, obviously, the principle of proportionality is also important.
Less can indeed be more. And we wonder really about what more can be done in this space on regulatory and policy reforms going forward. But with with that, I reserve Lord Murray's right to bring back his amendment should the noble Lord wish.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. And I think. Is he going to Lordships pressure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is he going to Lordships pressure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. My amendment is by leave withdrawn. My Lords, this seems to be a convenient time to break in a dinner break business. We will not return to the business. We will not return to the bill before 2021. I therefore beg to bill before 2021. I therefore beg to move that report. Be adjourned. My Lords, question, is that further consideration on report be consideration on report be adjourned.
As many of that opinion, say 'content' and its contrary not content, the contents have it, and content, the contents have it, and we shall have a very short pause today. Will those members who wish
Turning to 119, I think it's really important that we raise these issues, I think across the House, the need to do more for small and medium sized developers is widely felt across all parties. I recognise what the government has done on the site threshold paper and I think it's it it's welcome that the government is looking at the results that have come back from that. I think the House as a whole would welcome further developments from now. Turning to number 103, obviously, the principle of proportionality is also important.
Less can indeed be more. And we wonder really about what more can be done in this space on regulatory and policy reforms going forward. But with with that, I reserve Lord Murray's right to bring back his amendment should the noble Lord wish.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. And I think. Is he going to Lordships pressure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is he going to Lordships pressure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. My amendment is by leave withdrawn. My Lords, this seems to be a convenient time to break in a dinner break business. We will not return to the business. We will not return to the bill before 2021. I therefore beg to bill before 2021. I therefore beg to move that report. Be adjourned. My Lords, question, is that further consideration on report be consideration on report be adjourned.
As many of that opinion, say 'content' and its contrary not content, the contents have it, and content, the contents have it, and we shall have a very short pause today. Will those members who wish
19:42
19:43
Statement: Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy (around 7.30pm)
-
Statement: Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy (around 7.30pm)
of October on Post Skills Education post 16 Education and Skills
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Strategy. my Lords, I'd like to thank the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Strategy. my Lords, I'd like to thank the
19:43
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I'd like to thank the government for. This White Paper. It is indeed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This White Paper. It is indeed. An incredibly important and wide
**** Possible New Speaker ****
An incredibly important and wide ranging document, but it is. Essential that we build the skills pipeline.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
skills pipeline. To turn around the current stagnation in productivity and in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stagnation in productivity and in economic growth. But we also know on all sides of the House that. This is a tough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Problem to crack. I read. Somewhere I didn't double check the data, but. There were.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There were. There have been 41 attempts. To address this issue since the Labour address this issue since the Labour government was elected in 1997. But
**** Possible New Speaker ****
challenge. Will lie in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will lie in. Effective implementation and delivering the scale of change envisaged in the White Paper will envisaged in the White Paper will depend on very clear accountability and long. Term stability of decision making, and I'm sure this is an issue that we will come back to in issue that we will come back to in the years ahead in this House. We're pleased to see that there are pleased to see that there are elements in the white paper which builds on the work of the previous government.
We're pleased to see a date confirmed for the introduction date confirmed for the introduction of the life long learning entitlement, and hope very much that entitlement, and hope very much that this will build a pipeline of skills that levels four and five, which we that levels four and five, which we know are significantly lacking in the economy.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the economy. It isn't clear. How this change.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will be incentivised. I think it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the government intends Minister how the government intends to create a kind of. Pull from employers, but also how they will manage the financial risk to higher education institutions who understandably might be nervous about working. Moving from a three year degree model to a more modular approach. And as the noble lady knows, there is a huge marketing task to be done. The pilots that we ran when in government, significantly lax demand, I think is quite a polite way of describing it.
And so making people aware.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of these. Opportunities will be very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Opportunities will be very important. But I think it's also important that the government can important that the government can reassure the House that level four and five qualifications will retain and five qualifications will retain rigour and Labour market currency, and not simply represent. Partial and not simply represent. Partial completion of degree programs. We're also pleased to see the continuation also pleased to see the continuation of the technical Excellence colleges, which I think build on the Institute of Institutes of Institute of Institutes of Technology, which we founded and which of course received significant public funds, and we wish them every success.
But there is limited success. But there is limited clarity on how the network of excellent institutes of technology will be utilised within the new framework. So I wonder if the Minister could confirm their role in Minister could confirm their role in terms of delivering the higher technical education ambitions within technical education ambitions within the White Paper? Turning to the streamlining of level three streamlining of level three qualifications. This is something I spent a lot of time at the despatch box, arguing with peers all around the House about, so I wish the noble Lady good luck with that.
But can she clarify the sequencing of the ending of funding for BTECs and Advanced General Certificates, and the start of the new V levels? And how confident is she that there will be the workforce to deliver this, given the significant pay gap between staff working in Fe and teachers in our schools, the vocational level sound promising, but the timeline looks very tight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And again, I wonder if she can clarify what will happen if. There is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A delay. And that's obviously important because the Secretary of State said said the other day, and the other place that funding would be kept in place. And I quote, for most existing qualifications until the levels are brought in, as opposed to all existing opposed to all existing qualifications. And can she also confirm whether T levels will be extended into areas such as sports, extended into areas such as sports, science, performing arts, catering and hospitality, and hair and beauty, where there is strong beauty, where there is strong learner and employer.
Demand. The White paper rightly commits to simplifying what is currently a confusing qualifications landscape. And in that spirit, can the Minister And in that spirit, can the Minister confirm that B levels as. As as they confirm that B levels as. As as they are introduced, that proprietary titles such as BTec, City and Guilds and Cambridge Technicals will cease giving clarity to young people, to parents and to employers? There are a number of areas where we have concerns, and perhaps that's just a question of clarification, but the government appears to have scaled back the promotion and rollout of higher technical qualifications designed to meet employer set standards.
So can the Minister clarify the current commitment to the HDC model? Can she also clarify the details on the ability of colleges to self-certify their HQs? Of course. Previously I fait signed off on the quality of courses with significant input from employers and without external verification. Surely there is a risk that in future levy funds are spent on what could be, in some cases, low quality courses. And it feels like we've seen this in the university sector, particularly franchise providers, where there is not enough oversight of qualifications or standards.
Similarly, can she clarify the timeline for addressing the quality issues with some degrees? Our concern is that fees are going up before quality is addressed. Turning to the introduction of progress eight type measure in higher education, can the Minister outline how this will be constructed given the different curricula in each institution? And for those pupils who did not pass English and Maths GCSE while at secondary school, we of course welcome the additional investment to support them, but are concerned that there'll be a risk that some children will be deemed as being unable to pass these important qualifications.
And I wondered whether the government had estimated how many pupils they expect will never complete their maths and English GCSE. And then just finally, the white Paper is fairly silent, I would say, on incentives for employers to invest more. The noble Lady knows very well about the significant drops in employer significant drops in employer investment in these areas. The white paper is also silent on plans for boosting apprenticeships at levels two and three, which are obviously very important, and further plans for simplifying the funding of further education.
And then finally, I wonder whether the noble Lady is able to confirm whether the employer contribution to the Growth and skills levy will stay at 2%, or are there plans to increase it? The White Paper has a very brief section on measuring impact, which is mainly, if I may say, about counting outputs. So I wondered how progress and impact will be measured in a really transparent way, maybe through employer engagement, learner outcomes or gains regionally in terms of skills, or perhaps another way, can the minister say if every dream was fulfilled in this white paper, if every measure not to ask the park, what would be the impact on productivity in this country?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords we. These benches.
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, I'd like to thank the government for. This White Paper. It is indeed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This White Paper. It is indeed. An incredibly important and wide
**** Possible New Speaker ****
An incredibly important and wide ranging document, but it is. Essential that we build the skills pipeline.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
skills pipeline. To turn around the current stagnation in productivity and in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stagnation in productivity and in economic growth. But we also know on all sides of the House that. This is a tough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Problem to crack. I read. Somewhere I didn't double check the data, but. There were.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There were. There have been 41 attempts. To address this issue since the Labour address this issue since the Labour government was elected in 1997. But
**** Possible New Speaker ****
challenge. Will lie in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will lie in. Effective implementation and delivering the scale of change envisaged in the White Paper will envisaged in the White Paper will depend on very clear accountability and long. Term stability of decision making, and I'm sure this is an issue that we will come back to in issue that we will come back to in the years ahead in this House. We're pleased to see that there are pleased to see that there are elements in the white paper which builds on the work of the previous government.
We're pleased to see a date confirmed for the introduction date confirmed for the introduction of the life long learning entitlement, and hope very much that entitlement, and hope very much that this will build a pipeline of skills that levels four and five, which we that levels four and five, which we know are significantly lacking in the economy.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the economy. It isn't clear. How this change.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will be incentivised. I think it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the government intends Minister how the government intends to create a kind of. Pull from employers, but also how they will manage the financial risk to higher education institutions who understandably might be nervous about working. Moving from a three year degree model to a more modular approach. And as the noble lady knows, there is a huge marketing task to be done. The pilots that we ran when in government, significantly lax demand, I think is quite a polite way of describing it.
And so making people aware.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of these. Opportunities will be very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Opportunities will be very important. But I think it's also important that the government can important that the government can reassure the House that level four and five qualifications will retain and five qualifications will retain rigour and Labour market currency, and not simply represent. Partial and not simply represent. Partial completion of degree programs. We're also pleased to see the continuation also pleased to see the continuation of the technical Excellence colleges, which I think build on the Institute of Institutes of Institute of Institutes of Technology, which we founded and which of course received significant public funds, and we wish them every success.
But there is limited success. But there is limited clarity on how the network of excellent institutes of technology will be utilised within the new framework. So I wonder if the Minister could confirm their role in Minister could confirm their role in terms of delivering the higher technical education ambitions within technical education ambitions within the White Paper? Turning to the streamlining of level three streamlining of level three qualifications. This is something I spent a lot of time at the despatch box, arguing with peers all around the House about, so I wish the noble Lady good luck with that.
But can she clarify the sequencing of the ending of funding for BTECs and Advanced General Certificates, and the start of the new V levels? And how confident is she that there will be the workforce to deliver this, given the significant pay gap between staff working in Fe and teachers in our schools, the vocational level sound promising, but the timeline looks very tight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And again, I wonder if she can clarify what will happen if. There is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A delay. And that's obviously important because the Secretary of State said said the other day, and the other place that funding would be kept in place. And I quote, for most existing qualifications until the levels are brought in, as opposed to all existing opposed to all existing qualifications. And can she also confirm whether T levels will be extended into areas such as sports, extended into areas such as sports, science, performing arts, catering and hospitality, and hair and beauty, where there is strong beauty, where there is strong learner and employer.
Demand. The White paper rightly commits to simplifying what is currently a confusing qualifications landscape. And in that spirit, can the Minister And in that spirit, can the Minister confirm that B levels as. As as they confirm that B levels as. As as they are introduced, that proprietary titles such as BTec, City and Guilds and Cambridge Technicals will cease giving clarity to young people, to parents and to employers? There are a number of areas where we have concerns, and perhaps that's just a question of clarification, but the government appears to have scaled back the promotion and rollout of higher technical qualifications designed to meet employer set standards.
So can the Minister clarify the current commitment to the HDC model? Can she also clarify the details on the ability of colleges to self-certify their HQs? Of course. Previously I fait signed off on the quality of courses with significant input from employers and without external verification. Surely there is a risk that in future levy funds are spent on what could be, in some cases, low quality courses. And it feels like we've seen this in the university sector, particularly franchise providers, where there is not enough oversight of qualifications or standards.
Similarly, can she clarify the timeline for addressing the quality issues with some degrees? Our concern is that fees are going up before quality is addressed. Turning to the introduction of progress eight type measure in higher education, can the Minister outline how this will be constructed given the different curricula in each institution? And for those pupils who did not pass English and Maths GCSE while at secondary school, we of course welcome the additional investment to support them, but are concerned that there'll be a risk that some children will be deemed as being unable to pass these important qualifications.
And I wondered whether the government had estimated how many pupils they expect will never complete their maths and English GCSE. And then just finally, the white Paper is fairly silent, I would say, on incentives for employers to invest more. The noble Lady knows very well about the significant drops in employer significant drops in employer investment in these areas. The white paper is also silent on plans for boosting apprenticeships at levels two and three, which are obviously very important, and further plans for simplifying the funding of further education.
And then finally, I wonder whether the noble Lady is able to confirm whether the employer contribution to the Growth and skills levy will stay at 2%, or are there plans to increase it? The White Paper has a very brief section on measuring impact, which is mainly, if I may say, about counting outputs. So I wondered how progress and impact will be measured in a really transparent way, maybe through employer engagement, learner outcomes or gains regionally in terms of skills, or perhaps another way, can the minister say if every dream was fulfilled in this white paper, if every measure not to ask the park, what would be the impact on productivity in this country?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords we. These benches.
19:52
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords we. These benches. Welcome the statement. Many of. The points. That Bernice Baron has raised.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That Bernice Baron has raised. We share. Those concerns.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Those concerns. And she's quite skilfully teased those out in terms. Of the questions those out in terms. Of the questions she's asked. I suppose looking at the statement, my immediate thought
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is there's a lot of rhetoric in that statement, a lot of but it needs. To be perhaps less rhetoric.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To be perhaps less rhetoric. And more detail about some of the proposals.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
proposals. I think the biggest. Issue we face, which is not addressed, is the sort. Of the. Cultural shift.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cultural shift. In this country.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parents regard a successful education, but honestly, and have said this before.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
said this before. If the. Child or. Young person gets the required
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Young person gets the required numbers of GCSEs, goes into the sixth form and goes to university sixth form and goes to university and schools, lap up that of. Students who go into the sixth form because they get.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
because they get. Extra funding for it. And yet we know that half our second, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
know that half our second, the pupils in secondary schools are not. Academic, and yet we have this academic.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
academic. Curriculum. The thing that I also surprises me. In this statement, which I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this statement, which I think is really crucial, is young people need guidance, they need advice, need guidance, they need advice, they need help, they need support. And I'm just surprised that there is no mention of careers, education or careers guidance in this in this statement. At this point, I declare an interest as a patron of Career Connect. And it rightly says one our young people risk being left behind. Absolutely right. Because currently I think we're at or just about at 1 million meets in this country, not in education, employment or training.
It talks. About wanting local businesses to become more productive and bustle back on the high street. And that gives me example of how are we going to do that if it's not just by quality training, it's a number of other issues. And of course. The hike in National Insurance didn't if I promised, didn't help businesses, and it certainly didn't help for high streets either. It talks about the muddle of confusing pathways, yet makes perhaps in some regards, muddle even more confusing.
So the levels replace BTECs and cutting funding for the International Baccalaureate program in state schools.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We welcome. The levels bringing flexibility, but we'd rather see the phasing out but we'd rather see the phasing out of BTec by 2027, both running in parallel during the transition, so parallel during the transition, so outcomes outcomes can be compared. We know BTECs work, we know they We know BTECs work, we know they work is 200,000 students took them last year and 99% of the universities accept them. 1 in 5 workers hold them. We need the workers hold them.
We need the government to be more supportive here and look at funding streams. here and look at funding streams. Why could the minister tell me why Why could the minister tell me why can six forms claim VAT and yet further education colleges can't, further education colleges can't, for example. So I say we support the levels, but only if the transition from BTECs is based on evidence and if sufficient funding is provided to truly deliver a world. Class truly deliver a world.
Class vocational education. Briefly, I'm pleased about the section on universities I remember. I think the last statement the Minister gave us last statement the Minister gave us an assurance that they would face up to the funding crisis of universities, and she's been true to or government has been true to their word. I just think it's a bit disappointing that more money could have been available for universities had you not slapped on the levy for overseas students, that could have been an income stream that could have benefited the university sector.
And then I turned to the International Baccalaureate. It sets the global benchmark for education is that trusted by universities, Sir, and employers and educations educators around the world as a mark of academic excellence and why thousands of British families choose to send their children to schools offering the IB diploma. What assessment does the Minister of State made of the impact of this cut on students ability to study under
**** Possible New Speaker ****
an internationally recognised program? We welcome. The government's ambition to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The government's ambition to create a joined up strategic approach to education. However, the glaring admission of lifelong glaring admission of lifelong learning cannot be ignored. Learning doesn't end at 21. What stops is the doesn't end at 21. What stops is the government taking to provide pathways for essential professionals pathways for essential professionals and deal with shortages of social work, nursing and engineering? It's work, nursing and engineering? It's important to all of us. All of us have a real stake in this.
The have a real stake in this. The present government, the previous government that we get this right government that we get this right and this works. And I, I hope that the, the mantra of, of the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the, the mantra of, of the. What, two decades ago of education. Education, education is replaced
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with skills, skills, skills. Yeah. my Lords, in the relatively short
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords we. These benches. Welcome the statement. Many of. The points. That Bernice Baron has raised.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That Bernice Baron has raised. We share. Those concerns.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Those concerns. And she's quite skilfully teased those out in terms. Of the questions those out in terms. Of the questions she's asked. I suppose looking at the statement, my immediate thought
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is there's a lot of rhetoric in that statement, a lot of but it needs. To be perhaps less rhetoric.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To be perhaps less rhetoric. And more detail about some of the proposals.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
proposals. I think the biggest. Issue we face, which is not addressed, is the sort. Of the. Cultural shift.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cultural shift. In this country.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parents regard a successful education, but honestly, and have said this before.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
said this before. If the. Child or. Young person gets the required
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Young person gets the required numbers of GCSEs, goes into the sixth form and goes to university sixth form and goes to university and schools, lap up that of. Students who go into the sixth form because they get.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
because they get. Extra funding for it. And yet we know that half our second, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
know that half our second, the pupils in secondary schools are not. Academic, and yet we have this academic.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
academic. Curriculum. The thing that I also surprises me. In this statement, which I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this statement, which I think is really crucial, is young people need guidance, they need advice, need guidance, they need advice, they need help, they need support. And I'm just surprised that there is no mention of careers, education or careers guidance in this in this statement. At this point, I declare an interest as a patron of Career Connect. And it rightly says one our young people risk being left behind. Absolutely right. Because currently I think we're at or just about at 1 million meets in this country, not in education, employment or training.
It talks. About wanting local businesses to become more productive and bustle back on the high street. And that gives me example of how are we going to do that if it's not just by quality training, it's a number of other issues. And of course. The hike in National Insurance didn't if I promised, didn't help businesses, and it certainly didn't help for high streets either. It talks about the muddle of confusing pathways, yet makes perhaps in some regards, muddle even more confusing.
So the levels replace BTECs and cutting funding for the International Baccalaureate program in state schools.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We welcome. The levels bringing flexibility, but we'd rather see the phasing out but we'd rather see the phasing out of BTec by 2027, both running in parallel during the transition, so parallel during the transition, so outcomes outcomes can be compared. We know BTECs work, we know they We know BTECs work, we know they work is 200,000 students took them last year and 99% of the universities accept them. 1 in 5 workers hold them. We need the workers hold them.
We need the government to be more supportive here and look at funding streams. here and look at funding streams. Why could the minister tell me why Why could the minister tell me why can six forms claim VAT and yet further education colleges can't, further education colleges can't, for example. So I say we support the levels, but only if the transition from BTECs is based on evidence and if sufficient funding is provided to truly deliver a world. Class truly deliver a world.
Class vocational education. Briefly, I'm pleased about the section on universities I remember. I think the last statement the Minister gave us last statement the Minister gave us an assurance that they would face up to the funding crisis of universities, and she's been true to or government has been true to their word. I just think it's a bit disappointing that more money could have been available for universities had you not slapped on the levy for overseas students, that could have been an income stream that could have benefited the university sector.
And then I turned to the International Baccalaureate. It sets the global benchmark for education is that trusted by universities, Sir, and employers and educations educators around the world as a mark of academic excellence and why thousands of British families choose to send their children to schools offering the IB diploma. What assessment does the Minister of State made of the impact of this cut on students ability to study under
**** Possible New Speaker ****
an internationally recognised program? We welcome. The government's ambition to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The government's ambition to create a joined up strategic approach to education. However, the glaring admission of lifelong glaring admission of lifelong learning cannot be ignored. Learning doesn't end at 21. What stops is the doesn't end at 21. What stops is the government taking to provide pathways for essential professionals pathways for essential professionals and deal with shortages of social work, nursing and engineering? It's work, nursing and engineering? It's important to all of us. All of us have a real stake in this.
The have a real stake in this. The present government, the previous government that we get this right government that we get this right and this works. And I, I hope that the, the mantra of, of the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the, the mantra of, of the. What, two decades ago of education. Education, education is replaced
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with skills, skills, skills. Yeah. my Lords, in the relatively short
19:58
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, in the relatively short period of time left for me. Before we get on to other questions, I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points raised as as possible. Just to reiterate, this white paper outlines the government's plans to deliver a joined up skill system that targets skills gaps and leaves no place or person behind a specialist and prestigious fee sector with high quality study pathways into work. A world leading higher education sector that drives innovation and growth and delivers high quality and good value for students.
It is the blueprint for delivering the Prime Minister's bold new target for two thirds of young people to be participating in higher level learning, academic, technical or apprenticeships by age 25. On the first points. About higher technical qualifications that the noble Lady Baroness Baron made, we will work with the office for students to develop new HQ awarding powers for providers, and we are reforming the process for designating higher technical qualifications to make them meet a wider range of employer and local needs.
I'm glad that the noble Lady recognised the development of technical Excellence colleges as an important way of raising standards in further education. We are outlining plans for further 19 following the ten construction texts in a range of other industrial strategy areas. And TECs, of course, will enable us to raise standards by developing in those technical excellence colleges advanced equipment, specialist staff and new curricula, all alongside industry. And we will learn and build on the model of institutes of technology.
Although I do note that they haven't been a successful in developing levels four and five, as I suspect noble members opposite noble Lords opposite wanted them to be on the development of the levels. This government has taken the decision to maintain that important vocational route for young people, a route which would have disappeared under the previous government's plans. We will, in doing that, build on what works in current vocational qualifications, but we will also make sure that these new qualifications are linked to what employers need to see in those areas and guided by national standards.
On the issue of defunding, as we said last year, when we carried out the qualifications review, we do believe that where there are large courses in the same area as T levels, students will gain more by following a T level course. But we are we are going back from the defunding proposal, certainly of the previous government and some of those even in the qualifications review last year. And we will maintain funding for all large qualifications in non T level routes and for medium sized and small size qualifications in a T level.
Routes are up to the point at which V levels are available, ensuring that transition is as smooth as possible. And in developing V levels we will engage both with colleges, with with employers and of course with awarding bodies as well. The English and maths qualification. It remains incredibly important that young people achieve that grade for in English and maths, and that's why we have increased both funding and being clear in our guidance that that should continue to happen in further education colleges, but there is no point in keep taking an examination where somebody has not yet been able to gain the, the, the foundation necessary to succeed in that, which is the reason why we will introduce new opportunities through level one qualifications for those foundations to be built on, to be able to achieve success for young people rather than failure, will invest in the further education workforce as we already have done, and will of course provide £800 million extra next year for the further education.
Sector. Yes, we will consider areas where we can expand T levels. I will probably get the opportunity to say more about higher education quality later, but we are clear that where there is bad value for public money, we will, alongside offs, ensure that that that goes out of the system. We will. There is mention, by the way, of level two and three apprenticeships, not least of course, in the £1 billion worth of investment that this government has put into sector skills packages.
And can I say to the noble Lord, Lord story, as I finish this particular section, there is considerable. He suggests, that the statement is rhetorical. Yes. Elements of it were, but I'm sure that he's also looked at the considerable amount of detail, actually, in the white paper, and I'm sure we'll have many more opportunities to get into more detail on that. Fundamentally, though, as he says, what this white paper does is to improve the status of our technical and vocational qualification routes for young people and for older people in order to ensure that we bring about a fundamental renewal of the skill system as part of our national renewal.
This white paper is a turning point, and I look forward to working through how we deliver this fundamental change, how we measure it, and how we therefore lead to an improved skill system, improved opportunities for people throughout their lives, and improved growth for our economy.
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, in the relatively short period of time left for me. Before we get on to other questions, I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points raised as as possible. Just to reiterate, this white paper outlines the government's plans to deliver a joined up skill system that targets skills gaps and leaves no place or person behind a specialist and prestigious fee sector with high quality study pathways into work. A world leading higher education sector that drives innovation and growth and delivers high quality and good value for students.
It is the blueprint for delivering the Prime Minister's bold new target for two thirds of young people to be participating in higher level learning, academic, technical or apprenticeships by age 25. On the first points. About higher technical qualifications that the noble Lady Baroness Baron made, we will work with the office for students to develop new HQ awarding powers for providers, and we are reforming the process for designating higher technical qualifications to make them meet a wider range of employer and local needs.
I'm glad that the noble Lady recognised the development of technical Excellence colleges as an important way of raising standards in further education. We are outlining plans for further 19 following the ten construction texts in a range of other industrial strategy areas. And TECs, of course, will enable us to raise standards by developing in those technical excellence colleges advanced equipment, specialist staff and new curricula, all alongside industry. And we will learn and build on the model of institutes of technology.
Although I do note that they haven't been a successful in developing levels four and five, as I suspect noble members opposite noble Lords opposite wanted them to be on the development of the levels. This government has taken the decision to maintain that important vocational route for young people, a route which would have disappeared under the previous government's plans. We will, in doing that, build on what works in current vocational qualifications, but we will also make sure that these new qualifications are linked to what employers need to see in those areas and guided by national standards.
On the issue of defunding, as we said last year, when we carried out the qualifications review, we do believe that where there are large courses in the same area as T levels, students will gain more by following a T level course. But we are we are going back from the defunding proposal, certainly of the previous government and some of those even in the qualifications review last year. And we will maintain funding for all large qualifications in non T level routes and for medium sized and small size qualifications in a T level.
Routes are up to the point at which V levels are available, ensuring that transition is as smooth as possible. And in developing V levels we will engage both with colleges, with with employers and of course with awarding bodies as well. The English and maths qualification. It remains incredibly important that young people achieve that grade for in English and maths, and that's why we have increased both funding and being clear in our guidance that that should continue to happen in further education colleges, but there is no point in keep taking an examination where somebody has not yet been able to gain the, the, the foundation necessary to succeed in that, which is the reason why we will introduce new opportunities through level one qualifications for those foundations to be built on, to be able to achieve success for young people rather than failure, will invest in the further education workforce as we already have done, and will of course provide £800 million extra next year for the further education.
Sector. Yes, we will consider areas where we can expand T levels. I will probably get the opportunity to say more about higher education quality later, but we are clear that where there is bad value for public money, we will, alongside offs, ensure that that that goes out of the system. We will. There is mention, by the way, of level two and three apprenticeships, not least of course, in the £1 billion worth of investment that this government has put into sector skills packages.
And can I say to the noble Lord, Lord story, as I finish this particular section, there is considerable. He suggests, that the statement is rhetorical. Yes. Elements of it were, but I'm sure that he's also looked at the considerable amount of detail, actually, in the white paper, and I'm sure we'll have many more opportunities to get into more detail on that. Fundamentally, though, as he says, what this white paper does is to improve the status of our technical and vocational qualification routes for young people and for older people in order to ensure that we bring about a fundamental renewal of the skill system as part of our national renewal.
This white paper is a turning point, and I look forward to working through how we deliver this fundamental change, how we measure it, and how we therefore lead to an improved skill system, improved opportunities for people throughout their lives, and improved growth for our economy.
20:05
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
I also welcomes white paper. I think it's a turning point. I think. think it's a very serious document. And I think if it's implemented, it is a turning point that won't be going back on some key issues. But the devil really is in the detail. And although I think it's an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ambitious document, I just wanted to press the Minister on the. BTECs and. The fee level qualification because I think that is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
because I think that is. The biggest change. And if they don't work, this will not be a successful. White paper.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
White paper. So if. I may just, just press on what I think I've heard. Have I heard. The minister say.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The minister say. That there will be no gap in the. Defunding of the successful BTECs and the introduction of the V
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and the introduction of the V levels, even if the introduction of the V levels is later than. Anticipated. In the White. Paper, because that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper, because that. Very well may be the case. And I wonder if the Minister could also answer a query. I have in my mind
**** Possible New Speaker ****
answer a query. I have in my mind the defer the content of the. Beta. Test is successful now with both
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Test is successful now with both employers and learners. Will that contact that. Content. Be reclassified as a V level or
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will it cease. To exist? Well, to reiterate, what we have said is that where there is a T said is that where there is a T level in place, we will, as we said we would in the qualifications we would in the qualifications review that we did last year, defund a large qualification that sits a large qualification that sits alongside it, because all of the evidence is that at students get evidence is that at students get through T levels and the placements, for example, that go alongside T levels, a better chance of progression.
But yes, in all other areas we will maintain existing qualifications up to the point that a V level is in place in order to replace them, and we will want V levels to build on what is good about current vocational qualifications, including BTECs. And that's why we'll engage with through advisor, our advisory group with college principals, with the awarding organisations and with others. And of course we have issued a consultation document on the development of V levels and the other important reforms in post 16 qualifications, which I would encourage, not just a noble Lords, but anybody else interested in this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to contributing. Why? This is. An important document. The first
**** Possible New Speaker ****
An important document. The first thing I noticed about it though, was it's being fronted by DSA but not a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ambitious document, I just wanted to press the Minister on the. BTECs and. The fee level qualification because I think that is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
because I think that is. The biggest change. And if they don't work, this will not be a successful. White paper.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
White paper. So if. I may just, just press on what I think I've heard. Have I heard. The minister say.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The minister say. That there will be no gap in the. Defunding of the successful BTECs and the introduction of the V
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and the introduction of the V levels, even if the introduction of the V levels is later than. Anticipated. In the White. Paper, because that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper, because that. Very well may be the case. And I wonder if the Minister could also answer a query. I have in my mind
**** Possible New Speaker ****
answer a query. I have in my mind the defer the content of the. Beta. Test is successful now with both
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Test is successful now with both employers and learners. Will that contact that. Content. Be reclassified as a V level or
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will it cease. To exist? Well, to reiterate, what we have said is that where there is a T said is that where there is a T level in place, we will, as we said we would in the qualifications we would in the qualifications review that we did last year, defund a large qualification that sits a large qualification that sits alongside it, because all of the evidence is that at students get evidence is that at students get through T levels and the placements, for example, that go alongside T levels, a better chance of progression.
But yes, in all other areas we will maintain existing qualifications up to the point that a V level is in place in order to replace them, and we will want V levels to build on what is good about current vocational qualifications, including BTECs. And that's why we'll engage with through advisor, our advisory group with college principals, with the awarding organisations and with others. And of course we have issued a consultation document on the development of V levels and the other important reforms in post 16 qualifications, which I would encourage, not just a noble Lords, but anybody else interested in this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to contributing. Why? This is. An important document. The first
**** Possible New Speaker ****
An important document. The first thing I noticed about it though, was it's being fronted by DSA but not a
20:07
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
DCMS doesn't. Seem to be involved at. All when the creative industries. It's such an important aspect of the industrial strategy,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and in particular the many skill. Sets that will be needed to drive. These industries.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
These industries. And those are skills which will have their. Own pathways. So I do ask the Minister what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I do ask the Minister what thought has been given to vocational. Pathways for those who
**** Possible New Speaker ****
vocational. Pathways for those who wish to work in the creative industries? Well, there will be opportunities through V levels for those interested in vocational routes into creative industries. There will be opportunities through some of the sector skills packages, not least for example in the area of digital to support the creative industries. And there is of course, as part of the government's industrial the government's industrial strategy, a sector skills plan as part of the Creative Industries element of the Industrial Strategy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
element of the Industrial Strategy as well. Lords, I. Particularly welcome.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and in particular the many skill. Sets that will be needed to drive. These industries.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
These industries. And those are skills which will have their. Own pathways. So I do ask the Minister what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I do ask the Minister what thought has been given to vocational. Pathways for those who
**** Possible New Speaker ****
vocational. Pathways for those who wish to work in the creative industries? Well, there will be opportunities through V levels for those interested in vocational routes into creative industries. There will be opportunities through some of the sector skills packages, not least for example in the area of digital to support the creative industries. And there is of course, as part of the government's industrial the government's industrial strategy, a sector skills plan as part of the Creative Industries element of the Industrial Strategy
**** Possible New Speaker ****
element of the Industrial Strategy as well. Lords, I. Particularly welcome.
20:08
Lord Willetts (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Particularly welcome. The increase in fees for students as that sets the resources available for the education of students for the education of students without, of course, affecting the monthly repayments that graduates subsequently make. However, the International Student Levy will take away quite a bit of that resource and so does the Minister agree that the real resource available for educating students overall will continue to fall? And does she accept that that cannot carry on indefinitely? May I also say that I welcome the recognition in this white paper, that there is no viable alternative to the fees and loan system, which we've now had for over 20 years.
But is the Minister concerned that there are still misunderstandings and misplaced anxieties, that it's somehow a fixed amount of debt, like a credit card debt or stocks? You getting a mortgage? If anything, those concerns appear to be increasing. Will the DFI energetically commit to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
explaining to young people the realities of how the system works? Well, on the noble Lords first
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, on the noble Lords first point, no, I don't accept that an index linked increase in tuition
Lord Willetts (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Particularly welcome. The increase in fees for students as that sets the resources available for the education of students for the education of students without, of course, affecting the monthly repayments that graduates subsequently make. However, the International Student Levy will take away quite a bit of that resource and so does the Minister agree that the real resource available for educating students overall will continue to fall? And does she accept that that cannot carry on indefinitely? May I also say that I welcome the recognition in this white paper, that there is no viable alternative to the fees and loan system, which we've now had for over 20 years.
But is the Minister concerned that there are still misunderstandings and misplaced anxieties, that it's somehow a fixed amount of debt, like a credit card debt or stocks? You getting a mortgage? If anything, those concerns appear to be increasing. Will the DFI energetically commit to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
explaining to young people the realities of how the system works? Well, on the noble Lords first
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, on the noble Lords first point, no, I don't accept that an index linked increase in tuition
20:09
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
fees, a certainty of funding which no other public or private sector organisation or very few could, could be, could have committed to them will leave universities worse off. Notwithstanding this government's decision that in order to reinstate the maintenance grants removed by the last government, we will use a levy on international students in order to reintroduce targeted maintenance grants for those students. Because asking students to invest in their education is, of course, right alongside government investment. But we need to make sure that that in a world leading higher education system is open to all who can benefit from it.
And we close the gap in access, which has persisted for too long.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords the government? Well, the government have stated and the minister's repeated, that we
And we close the gap in access, which has persisted for too long.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords the government? Well, the government have stated and the minister's repeated, that we
20:10
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
and the minister's repeated, that we have this concentration on English and maths. They have also talk about special educational needs. Now, my Lords, I my I think once again to declare my interests in special education. I'm President of the British Association, whose event in the Commons I'm missing at the moment and also chairman of Mirrorlink plc that do assistive tech packages. If you've got a special educational needs, let's take dyscalculia for a good example. I have met somebody the other day whose brother was on their 15th failure of passing their maths component of an apprenticeship.
Can we make sure that we look at the qualifications? And if you're going to bring everybody into the skill set that everybody is allowed to pass, either this is by changing that qualification or by actually allowing assistive technology to be used. This doesn't happen to universities. They can make their own rules. But for the higher education sector that levels up to five, it is essential that we have that guidance from the government. that guidance from the government.
Can we make sure that we look at the qualifications? And if you're going to bring everybody into the skill set that everybody is allowed to pass, either this is by changing that qualification or by actually allowing assistive technology to be used. This doesn't happen to universities. They can make their own rules. But for the higher education sector that levels up to five, it is essential that we have that guidance from the government. that guidance from the government.
20:11
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
Well, first of all, of course, quite often in further education there is very good special educational needs provision, which we will which we will learn from. And we will also ensure as part of our special educational needs reform, that further education is included as a part of that. But the whole point about the reform in English and maths qualifications, and particularly the introduction of a new qualification that will enable students to demonstrate and build on their foundations, is to support more young people in passing.
And of course, the noble Lord will also know that we have changed the conditions for adult apprenticeships so that it's no longer necessary to get a separate English or maths qualification in order to get an adult apprenticeship.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. Whilst I would want to associate myself with Lords stories comments on the IB, I want to focus on the issue.
And of course, the noble Lord will also know that we have changed the conditions for adult apprenticeships so that it's no longer necessary to get a separate English or maths qualification in order to get an adult apprenticeship.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. Whilst I would want to associate myself with Lords stories comments on the IB, I want to focus on the issue.
20:12
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. NEETs and the White Paper seeks to address the growing problem of NEETs with the targeted support in schools, with the Youth Guarantee, and with short courses funded by the Growth and Skills Levy and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement. Could the Minister tell us how these short courses will consolidate into high courses will consolidate into high quality apprenticeships that this vulnerable group need if they are to prosper in the Labour market?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. NEETs and the White Paper seeks to address the growing problem of NEETs with the targeted support in schools, with the Youth Guarantee, and with short courses funded by the Growth and Skills Levy and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement. Could the Minister tell us how these short courses will consolidate into high courses will consolidate into high quality apprenticeships that this vulnerable group need if they are to prosper in the Labour market?
20:12
20:14
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
young people who are either neither learning nor earning in order to learning nor earning in order to prevent that in the first place. Of course, as he identifies, we will have higher expectations on schools have higher expectations on schools to ensure suitable destinations for to ensure suitable destinations for young people. We will look at the ways in which we can ensure that every young person has a place in a every young person has a place in a college and is auto enrolled if necessary, and we will then through, for example, the Chancellor's announcement of a backstop youth guarantee work placement for young people on Universal Credit who've been out of work for 18 months.
Make been out of work for 18 months. Make sure that people no longer start their working lives without the work or training that can lead them to or training that can lead them to succeed. And of course, when it comes to short courses, this is part of our reform of the apprenticeship levy into a much more flexible growth and skills levy, which, growth and skills levy, which, alongside short courses, also introduces Foundation Apprenticeships, which will be a very important way in which young people will be able to enter into the workforce.
And I think we'll
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the workforce. And I think we'll well. We know what. Noble Lords to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Keep their questions short. We have enormous interest in this subject. We want to go through as many questions as we can.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
many questions as we can. my Lords, I declare my interest as a visiting professor at King's and Chairman of Futurelearn. I
Make been out of work for 18 months. Make sure that people no longer start their working lives without the work or training that can lead them to or training that can lead them to succeed. And of course, when it comes to short courses, this is part of our reform of the apprenticeship levy into a much more flexible growth and skills levy, which, growth and skills levy, which, alongside short courses, also introduces Foundation Apprenticeships, which will be a very important way in which young people will be able to enter into the workforce.
And I think we'll
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the workforce. And I think we'll well. We know what. Noble Lords to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Keep their questions short. We have enormous interest in this subject. We want to go through as many questions as we can.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
many questions as we can. my Lords, I declare my interest as a visiting professor at King's and Chairman of Futurelearn. I
20:14
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Conservative)
welcome the statement. I particularly like my Noble friend Lord Willetts the decision. Bold decision to index fees with inflation. It's absolutely the right thing to do after a decade of real terms freezes. But I do regret the missed opportunity to fix some of the big problems with the lifelong learning entitlement, and also the decision to take away, with the other hand, what the government's just given. On the fees front, could the Minister please confirm the scope of the proposed international of the tax on international tuition fees? Does it include, for example, online provision and also transnational education, i.e.
Courses taken by students from British universities while they're studying in other countries? And given the government has acknowledged it does not have a strong evidence base on elasticity of demand, would it not be a better idea to pause the rollout of this tax, or better still, shelved
**** Possible New Speaker ****
altogether? Well, I mean, I explained to the
Courses taken by students from British universities while they're studying in other countries? And given the government has acknowledged it does not have a strong evidence base on elasticity of demand, would it not be a better idea to pause the rollout of this tax, or better still, shelved
**** Possible New Speaker ****
altogether? Well, I mean, I explained to the
20:15
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I mean, I explained to the to the noble Lords colleague the reason behind the international student levy. I don't think it is student levy. I don't think it is true to say that there isn't an evidence base on the elasticity of demand for international students, but we will have more to say about the design of the international
**** Possible New Speaker ****
budget. my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. I welcome also the ambitious nature of the White Paper. But I wonder if the. Minister can respond to how the strategy will ensure that
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I mean, I explained to the to the noble Lords colleague the reason behind the international student levy. I don't think it is student levy. I don't think it is true to say that there isn't an evidence base on the elasticity of demand for international students, but we will have more to say about the design of the international
**** Possible New Speaker ****
budget. my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. I welcome also the ambitious nature of the White Paper. But I wonder if the. Minister can respond to how the strategy will ensure that
20:15
Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
to how the strategy will ensure that creative industries and crafts are seen as a legitimate skill sectors on an equal footing with engineering, manufacturing and industrial bodies. And given that many creative and craft roles are bespoke, freelance or project based, how the strategy accommodates non-standard employment and income models in training. And qualifications, and how will. Success for craft and creative
**** Possible New Speaker ****
routes be measured, and how will this compare with other sectors? Well.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
routes be measured, and how will this compare with other sectors? Well.
20:16
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. There are a lot of questions in the in the noble Lords question, most of which I will have to respond most of which I will have to respond to in writing, but just to reassure the noble Lord, you know, we all we maintain a considerable number, for example, in the sort of crafts that he was talking about, of apprenticeship standards that can, of course, be used by employers in order to take on apprenticeship apprentices and continue those sorts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of important crafts. Let me just make two.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Let me just make two. I wanted to probe the issue of franchising in the higher education
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well. There are a lot of questions in the in the noble Lords question, most of which I will have to respond most of which I will have to respond to in writing, but just to reassure the noble Lord, you know, we all we maintain a considerable number, for example, in the sort of crafts that he was talking about, of apprenticeship standards that can, of course, be used by employers in order to take on apprenticeship apprentices and continue those sorts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of important crafts. Let me just make two.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Let me just make two. I wanted to probe the issue of franchising in the higher education
20:17
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Labour)
sector. I am delighted to see the government take action, but as the Minister will be aware, there is some anxiety that only by requiring the largest providers to register, we may miss some of the bad actors in this area. So will the government keep the case for universal. Basic registration of all providers under review? Secondly, as she is aware that have been excess profits made, and can she assure us that the Department will be monitoring these returns to mitigate against profiteering with public monies and tackle the inadequate teaching that there has been for some students involved in this sector.
And finally, will she keep under review the risks of keeping the student
**** Possible New Speaker ****
loan book open to this high risk providers in this area? Well, my noble friend is right
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, my noble friend is right that the doubling of the effective subcontracting of university education through franchising over
And finally, will she keep under review the risks of keeping the student
**** Possible New Speaker ****
loan book open to this high risk providers in this area? Well, my noble friend is right
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, my noble friend is right that the doubling of the effective subcontracting of university education through franchising over
20:18
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
education through franchising over recent years has led to concerns around the quality, the value of the quality for students and the value for money for the taxpayer. And that's why we will take action to register providers of franchised provision, and we will strengthen the ability of the office for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
students to be able to tackle poor provision where that is found. My Lords. Lord Knight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Can I just, you know, support the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
students to be able to tackle poor provision where that is found. My Lords. Lord Knight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Can I just, you know, support the
20:18
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I just, you know, support the comments of both Lord story and Lord Knight in terms of NEETs, in terms of actual funding. For it. But one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the issues that you. Will find in NEETs is the. Not known figure. So we might know the young people that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
know the young people that. Aren't in employment, education, training, but often there is a cohort of young people that are not known. And I think that's where
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I think that's where investment in information, advice and guidance and youth work will be essential. But the two questions I essential. But the two questions I really want to pose to the minister is around lifelong learning, and a glaring omission from your statement, and that is the post 2021 apprenticeships, because lifelong learning doesn't end at 21. And I would like the government to relook at the cuts that are being made to those apprenticeships, clearly around the health sector, etc.
And then the comments around that. Lord Storey did ask about the assessment of the International Baccalaureate in terms of what that will have an impact on students, transnational students, particularly those that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
want to study abroad as well. Well, there is. There is an increase in the number of apprenticeships that have number of apprenticeships that have started under this government. Number one, secondly, on the issue
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I just, you know, support the comments of both Lord story and Lord Knight in terms of NEETs, in terms of actual funding. For it. But one.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the issues that you. Will find in NEETs is the. Not known figure. So we might know the young people that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
know the young people that. Aren't in employment, education, training, but often there is a cohort of young people that are not known. And I think that's where
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I think that's where investment in information, advice and guidance and youth work will be essential. But the two questions I essential. But the two questions I really want to pose to the minister is around lifelong learning, and a glaring omission from your statement, and that is the post 2021 apprenticeships, because lifelong learning doesn't end at 21. And I would like the government to relook at the cuts that are being made to those apprenticeships, clearly around the health sector, etc.
And then the comments around that. Lord Storey did ask about the assessment of the International Baccalaureate in terms of what that will have an impact on students, transnational students, particularly those that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
want to study abroad as well. Well, there is. There is an increase in the number of apprenticeships that have number of apprenticeships that have started under this government. Number one, secondly, on the issue
20:19
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
of the International Baccalaureate. Colleges and schools will continue to receive funding to provide courses, including the International Baccalaureate. What they won't receive is the additional top up that they have have received for International Baccalaureate, because this government has made a decision to focus that onto maths and Stem subjects, where people take large numbers, larger numbers of courses, I think that is a legitimate decision to make to prioritise those areas where the IB is being taught.
There will be transitional support
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as the top up is removed from that. Also.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Also. White paper places very heavy emphasis on modularity and credit
There will be transitional support
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as the top up is removed from that. Also.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Also. White paper places very heavy emphasis on modularity and credit
20:20
Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
emphasis on modularity and credit transfer as mechanisms to improve post 16 education. Has the Minister
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of. The previous attempt? The qualification and credit framework brought in 2008, scrapped from 2015, and all the lessons that from 2015, and all the lessons that that should have taught us about the risks and important requirements for such a system.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
such a system. Well the noble Lady I think she was welcoming the development of a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of. The previous attempt? The qualification and credit framework brought in 2008, scrapped from 2015, and all the lessons that from 2015, and all the lessons that that should have taught us about the risks and important requirements for such a system.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
such a system. Well the noble Lady I think she was welcoming the development of a
20:21
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
was welcoming the development of a more modular approach supported of course, as well through the delivery of the lifelong learning entitlement. And of course, we will want to look carefully at previous experiences. But I do think that we have a big opportunity here, both to increase the prevalence of those students who are able to go through a pathway to level four and level five courses and the willingness of higher education institutions to work with further education in order to promote the possibility of that happening.
And as I say, we will learn from previous experiences in doing that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords my Lords alignment with the industrial. Strategy is vital. And I'm really pleased.
And as I say, we will learn from previous experiences in doing that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords my Lords alignment with the industrial. Strategy is vital. And I'm really pleased.
20:22
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I'm really pleased. To see that the White Paper is taking a national view of skills in target sectors, and it's good news
**** Possible New Speaker ****
target sectors, and it's good news to see that sector skills packages with. Significant investment. Attach have. Been. Agreed for construction
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Been. Agreed for construction tech First. Engineering and defence. There are also shortages, as has been said in the creative been said in the creative industries. Can I press my noble friend? Do you agree that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
skills. Plan and package forum. With the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Creative industries. Working with DFI, DCMS and deficit is a priority
**** Possible New Speaker ****
DFI, DCMS and deficit is a priority and needs to be developed at pace. Well. Noble friend knows that there is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble friend knows that there is a sector skills plan that goes alongside the creative industries. Inclusion in the industrial strategy. And of course, it's already the case that amongst the already the case that amongst the sector skills packages, for example, the digital package with £187
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I'm really pleased. To see that the White Paper is taking a national view of skills in target sectors, and it's good news
**** Possible New Speaker ****
target sectors, and it's good news to see that sector skills packages with. Significant investment. Attach have. Been. Agreed for construction
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Been. Agreed for construction tech First. Engineering and defence. There are also shortages, as has been said in the creative been said in the creative industries. Can I press my noble friend? Do you agree that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
skills. Plan and package forum. With the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Creative industries. Working with DFI, DCMS and deficit is a priority
**** Possible New Speaker ****
DFI, DCMS and deficit is a priority and needs to be developed at pace. Well. Noble friend knows that there is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble friend knows that there is a sector skills plan that goes alongside the creative industries. Inclusion in the industrial strategy. And of course, it's already the case that amongst the already the case that amongst the sector skills packages, for example, the digital package with £187
20:22
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
million behind it will be developing important skills for the creative industry. But as well as the sector skills plan, there will be the development of jobs plans in each of the areas and I'm sure that my Noble friend will maintain her pressure to make sure that in creative industries, that makes the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difference to skills that I know she wants to see. The green. Green.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difference to skills that I know she wants to see. The green. Green.
20:23
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On the reality of student debt. The hope that started to be liable for paying off the debt. In April for paying off the debt. In April 2025, the average debt was £53,000. On the government's stats for students starting in 2425, it was expected about 56% of full time undergraduates will repay in full, which of course means 46% of those students will spend 40 years paying off a loan they will never finish paying off. Can the noble Lady tell me either now or in writing, what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
these increases in fees will do to those two figures? Well, of course, what the noble
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On the reality of student debt. The hope that started to be liable for paying off the debt. In April for paying off the debt. In April 2025, the average debt was £53,000. On the government's stats for students starting in 2425, it was expected about 56% of full time undergraduates will repay in full, which of course means 46% of those students will spend 40 years paying off a loan they will never finish paying off. Can the noble Lady tell me either now or in writing, what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
these increases in fees will do to those two figures? Well, of course, what the noble
20:23
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, of course, what the noble the noble Lady has identified is the very different nature of the student loan provision to an ordinary form loan provision to an ordinary form of borrowing, because of course, what a student repays is neither dependent on the size of the debt, nor is it dependent on the interest rate. It's dependent on the level of income that the student wants. They're working well. She can shake a head, but that is actually the reality of the way in which the system is designed.
So therefore there is a there is both a student contribution and in many ways, a taxpayer contribution to ensuring that there is no upfront cost to students going into university. And I think the noble Lord makes an important point that we need to clarify at the nature of the student loan system, in order that we don't discourage young people from going into university.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cross-bench. Teacher. I very much welcome this wonderfully optimistic white paper,
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, of course, what the noble the noble Lady has identified is the very different nature of the student loan provision to an ordinary form loan provision to an ordinary form of borrowing, because of course, what a student repays is neither dependent on the size of the debt, nor is it dependent on the interest rate. It's dependent on the level of income that the student wants. They're working well. She can shake a head, but that is actually the reality of the way in which the system is designed.
So therefore there is a there is both a student contribution and in many ways, a taxpayer contribution to ensuring that there is no upfront cost to students going into university. And I think the noble Lord makes an important point that we need to clarify at the nature of the student loan system, in order that we don't discourage young people from going into university.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cross-bench. Teacher. I very much welcome this wonderfully optimistic white paper,
20:24
Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
wonderfully optimistic white paper, and it's positively Churchillian language. At one point it says we're improving careers advice and schools, introducing two weeks worth of work experience throughout a young person's secondary education. The Gatsby Foundation goes to provisions past talks about the difficulty of securing meaningful work placements when schools biggest complaints is that T levels are incredibly difficult to teach because you cannot get meaningful
**** Possible New Speaker ****
working placements. How does the government see this working? Well. It's one of the big advantages of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's one of the big advantages of T levels that students are able to gain a 45 day work placement gain a 45 day work placement alongside their A study. It's what student T level students continuously tell me is the thing that they find most satisfying about doing a T level. Yes, there is a challenge to make sure that those
**** Possible New Speaker ****
working placements. How does the government see this working? Well. It's one of the big advantages of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's one of the big advantages of T levels that students are able to gain a 45 day work placement gain a 45 day work placement alongside their A study. It's what student T level students continuously tell me is the thing that they find most satisfying about doing a T level. Yes, there is a challenge to make sure that those
20:25
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
challenge to make sure that those are high quality, but that's why through our T level ambassadors, through a very good meeting that I had just last week with employers, we are continuing to work to make sure that employers provide those placements which are of benefit, by the way, not only to the students, but also to the employers themselves, who often find the workers of the future in those placements.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, that completes the time allotted for this statement. I'll pause for a short time to allow noble Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Lords. Who may. Wish to do so in a moment, to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, that completes the time allotted for this statement. I'll pause for a short time to allow noble Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Lords. Who may. Wish to do so in a moment, to
20:26
Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – report stage (day 2) - part three
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Wish to do so in a moment, to leave the chamber as quickly. As lot. To get through in the planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To get through in the planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report Report of Report of the Report of the Planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Baroness Taylor, Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move that the consider the bill on report, which says that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill on report, which says that the bill be now further. Considered on report. As many as are of that opinion,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As many as are of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary not content the contents Hallett amendments 78 Baroness McIntosh. amendments 78 Baroness McIntosh. Pickering my Lords. I'm grateful to have the opportunity. You just speak
Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – report stage (day 2) - part three
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Wish to do so in a moment, to leave the chamber as quickly. As lot. To get through in the planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To get through in the planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report Report of Report of the Report of the Planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Baroness Taylor, Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move that the consider the bill on report, which says that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill on report, which says that the bill be now further. Considered on report. As many as are of that opinion,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As many as are of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary not content the contents Hallett amendments 78 Baroness McIntosh. amendments 78 Baroness McIntosh. Pickering my Lords. I'm grateful to have the opportunity. You just speak
20:27
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
have the opportunity. You just speak to amendments 70 and 81 and in passing, may I just say. How appealing I find the amendments in this group in the name of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb? There was a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
much ignored review by Anna Walker on water. Efficiency, and I think. That these amendments that she
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That these amendments that she has proposed encapsulates the recommendations. So I look forward to. Hearing. Baroness Bennett. Speak to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speak to. Those amendments. I'd like to thank. Baroness Bennett. For supporting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For supporting. Both of these amendments, and Baroness Willis of Summertown. For supporting. Amendment 70.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For supporting. Amendment 70. These amendments are, if you like, flip sides of the same coin. I think the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think the. Government has a choice. If they are going to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Build on floodplains, particularly the most. Hazardous floodplains.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hazardous floodplains. prone. To flooding. Then I. Believe that they. Must
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Then I. Believe that they. Must take the precautions of introducing property flood resilience measures.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
property flood resilience measures. As I've set out. In amendment 70, and these are very practical.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and these are very practical. Raised electrical sockets, non. Balls and other. Specifications that I've set out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Specifications that I've set out there. In fact, I understand that. I'm sure many of these could actually be introduced through actually be introduced through building regulations. So it would only take the form of secondary legislation. I don't believe that we need to necessarily have the detail, but I would like the government either to make a commitment. To increasing property flood resilience measures, where.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are building on functional floodplains. Or desist from. Speaking on. Functional floodplains
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Functional floodplains completely. I was very encouraged when I tabled a similar. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to amendment 81 to the Levelling. Up. And Regeneration Bill. Now, the act to have the support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
act to have the support. Of the then opposition for. The proposition. Which is now contained.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which is now contained. In. Amendment 81. So I'm hoping that that support can be repeated that that support can be repeated and that the now government will support the contents of that amendment. It's very clear. It's amendment. It's very clear. It's just seeking to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on floodplains or in areas that high risk of flooding. In particular, I risk of flooding. In particular, I focussed on zone 3 or 3 b why is focussed on zone 3 or 3 b why is that important? Because 6.3 million homes in the UK are currently at risk of flooding.
This will increase risk of flooding. This will increase to 8 million, or one in every four homes by 2050.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
homes by 2050. So if the government. Continued that trend, 115,000 of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Continued that trend, 115,000 of the planned 1.5 million homes would be in high risk flood areas. But perhaps the. Core reason why it's inappropriate to build on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
floodplains, which are zone three A and three B, as we know. Since flood.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Since flood. Ray came into effect, any House built on a floodplain since 2009
**** Possible New Speaker ****
built on a floodplain since 2009 will not be insured under the flood risk scheme. There may be able to. Have insurance. But it will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But it will. Be very expensive indeed. So it just seems mind boggling that we just seems mind boggling that we would even consider building on those most at risk as floodplains if those most at risk as floodplains if we, the government, persists with its desire to build on these particular floodplains, then what particular floodplains, then what I'm asking is that we do make them resilient to these measures. Now, what has changed and why? I brought what has changed and why? I brought this back at the port stage is, I'm sure the noble Lady of the minister will be aware that the Select Committee on Environmental Audit in the Other place published on the 13th of October.
Its report, 13th of October. Its report, Conclusions and Recommendations on Flood. Resilience in England. And Flood. Resilience in England. And they say, in particular in paragraph one, that they are concerned that the current flood risk framework is the current flood risk framework is underpowered and fragmented, and that the flood and Coastal Erosion risk management strategy lacks enforceability. And then in paragraph two, it goes on to say that flood resilience must be embedded in statute as a clear responsibility, not left as a discretionary ambition.
The reason why this is becoming increasingly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important. So Michael Pitt set out in his review 2008. Following the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Following the. Terrible floods of 2007. The recommendations he made to deal with surface water flooding. Surface water flooding. Is the flooding which is increasing much more than fluvial or coastal flooding.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fluvial or coastal flooding. And as. Yet, the government, successive governments have not found a means governments have not found a means of dealing with it. So this is an ongoing challenge that we face. And in the spirit of cross-party cooperation, I submit these two amendments this evening and I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments this evening and I beg to move. And then. The proposed. After clause 51, insert the following new clause property flood following new clause property flood resilience measures. on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on. The marginal list Lords I first need to declare my interest, as noted in the Register, as a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
much ignored review by Anna Walker on water. Efficiency, and I think. That these amendments that she
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That these amendments that she has proposed encapsulates the recommendations. So I look forward to. Hearing. Baroness Bennett. Speak to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speak to. Those amendments. I'd like to thank. Baroness Bennett. For supporting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For supporting. Both of these amendments, and Baroness Willis of Summertown. For supporting. Amendment 70.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For supporting. Amendment 70. These amendments are, if you like, flip sides of the same coin. I think the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think the. Government has a choice. If they are going to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Build on floodplains, particularly the most. Hazardous floodplains.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hazardous floodplains. prone. To flooding. Then I. Believe that they. Must
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Then I. Believe that they. Must take the precautions of introducing property flood resilience measures.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
property flood resilience measures. As I've set out. In amendment 70, and these are very practical.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and these are very practical. Raised electrical sockets, non. Balls and other. Specifications that I've set out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Specifications that I've set out there. In fact, I understand that. I'm sure many of these could actually be introduced through actually be introduced through building regulations. So it would only take the form of secondary legislation. I don't believe that we need to necessarily have the detail, but I would like the government either to make a commitment. To increasing property flood resilience measures, where.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We are building on functional floodplains. Or desist from. Speaking on. Functional floodplains
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Functional floodplains completely. I was very encouraged when I tabled a similar. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to amendment 81 to the Levelling. Up. And Regeneration Bill. Now, the act to have the support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
act to have the support. Of the then opposition for. The proposition. Which is now contained.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which is now contained. In. Amendment 81. So I'm hoping that that support can be repeated that that support can be repeated and that the now government will support the contents of that amendment. It's very clear. It's amendment. It's very clear. It's just seeking to ensure that local authorities cannot grant planning permission for residential properties to be built on floodplains or in areas that high risk of flooding. In particular, I risk of flooding. In particular, I focussed on zone 3 or 3 b why is focussed on zone 3 or 3 b why is that important? Because 6.3 million homes in the UK are currently at risk of flooding.
This will increase risk of flooding. This will increase to 8 million, or one in every four homes by 2050.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
homes by 2050. So if the government. Continued that trend, 115,000 of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Continued that trend, 115,000 of the planned 1.5 million homes would be in high risk flood areas. But perhaps the. Core reason why it's inappropriate to build on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
floodplains, which are zone three A and three B, as we know. Since flood.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Since flood. Ray came into effect, any House built on a floodplain since 2009
**** Possible New Speaker ****
built on a floodplain since 2009 will not be insured under the flood risk scheme. There may be able to. Have insurance. But it will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But it will. Be very expensive indeed. So it just seems mind boggling that we just seems mind boggling that we would even consider building on those most at risk as floodplains if those most at risk as floodplains if we, the government, persists with its desire to build on these particular floodplains, then what particular floodplains, then what I'm asking is that we do make them resilient to these measures. Now, what has changed and why? I brought what has changed and why? I brought this back at the port stage is, I'm sure the noble Lady of the minister will be aware that the Select Committee on Environmental Audit in the Other place published on the 13th of October.
Its report, 13th of October. Its report, Conclusions and Recommendations on Flood. Resilience in England. And Flood. Resilience in England. And they say, in particular in paragraph one, that they are concerned that the current flood risk framework is the current flood risk framework is underpowered and fragmented, and that the flood and Coastal Erosion risk management strategy lacks enforceability. And then in paragraph two, it goes on to say that flood resilience must be embedded in statute as a clear responsibility, not left as a discretionary ambition.
The reason why this is becoming increasingly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
important. So Michael Pitt set out in his review 2008. Following the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Following the. Terrible floods of 2007. The recommendations he made to deal with surface water flooding. Surface water flooding. Is the flooding which is increasing much more than fluvial or coastal flooding.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fluvial or coastal flooding. And as. Yet, the government, successive governments have not found a means governments have not found a means of dealing with it. So this is an ongoing challenge that we face. And in the spirit of cross-party cooperation, I submit these two amendments this evening and I beg to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments this evening and I beg to move. And then. The proposed. After clause 51, insert the following new clause property flood following new clause property flood resilience measures. on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on. The marginal list Lords I first need to declare my interest, as noted in the Register, as a
20:33
Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
noted in the Register, as a non-executive director of that research. So this declaration is particularly appropriate as I stand to support the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh of Pickering in bringing back what I say is a really sensible amendment, and indeed, I actually support all the amendments in this group. This is because this company and are not, along with many other ones, provides a scientific evidence base for nature and climate based risks for companies that are concerned with the changing environmental landscape in which they find themselves, not least because of the costs of their businesses, stocks and shares.
And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the bottom line, if they don't bring in mitigation measures. I'm therefore really.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm therefore really. Struggling to understand why the government feels unable to support government feels unable to support such a sensible, sensible amendment which would ensure that the same sort of mitigation approach for individual homeowners could take place, especially, and this is really important for those in those really important for those in those lower socioeconomic bands who may well not be able to afford these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
high costs of flood risks, or even got any insurance. I think. We.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Must admit, and we must acknowledge that flood risk is real. We hear many, many. I could give more examples, but I'm not going to more examples, but I'm not going to because of time. It's a rapidly. Increasing risk and it's not Increasing risk and it's not something that might happen. It's something that will happen. And we're seeing it yearly changes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we're seeing it yearly changes occurring now. So what's being suggested here are really simple. And low. Cost measures that can be taken
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cost measures that can be taken by developers to ensure that the homes they sell in areas of higher homes they sell in areas of higher flood risk are future proofed. Now at the committee, the minister responded that designers of new responded that designers of new homes may choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association Code of Practice, which includes installing flood resistant features. But my question is what happens when designers decide not to follow this? And the burden of repairing homes damaged by flood flooding falls to the owners and their insurers.
So I see this as by strengthening planning rules to encourage low cost property resilience measures, such as those opposed in the proposing this amendment, mean the risk to individual homeowners could be reduced from the outset, and the costs of flooding not just financial but also to mental well-being, can be avoided.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank thank you. I was going to say to. Follow the. Two noble Lady who've just
And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the bottom line, if they don't bring in mitigation measures. I'm therefore really.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm therefore really. Struggling to understand why the government feels unable to support government feels unable to support such a sensible, sensible amendment which would ensure that the same sort of mitigation approach for individual homeowners could take place, especially, and this is really important for those in those really important for those in those lower socioeconomic bands who may well not be able to afford these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
high costs of flood risks, or even got any insurance. I think. We.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Must admit, and we must acknowledge that flood risk is real. We hear many, many. I could give more examples, but I'm not going to more examples, but I'm not going to because of time. It's a rapidly. Increasing risk and it's not Increasing risk and it's not something that might happen. It's something that will happen. And we're seeing it yearly changes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we're seeing it yearly changes occurring now. So what's being suggested here are really simple. And low. Cost measures that can be taken
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cost measures that can be taken by developers to ensure that the homes they sell in areas of higher homes they sell in areas of higher flood risk are future proofed. Now at the committee, the minister responded that designers of new responded that designers of new homes may choose to follow the Construction Industry Research and Information Association Code of Practice, which includes installing flood resistant features. But my question is what happens when designers decide not to follow this? And the burden of repairing homes damaged by flood flooding falls to the owners and their insurers.
So I see this as by strengthening planning rules to encourage low cost property resilience measures, such as those opposed in the proposing this amendment, mean the risk to individual homeowners could be reduced from the outset, and the costs of flooding not just financial but also to mental well-being, can be avoided.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank thank you. I was going to say to. Follow the. Two noble Lady who've just
20:35
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Two noble Lady who've just spoken, demonstrating the breadth of support for this set of amendments around the House. And as the noble around the House. And as the noble Lady Baroness with us, I think, just said, to paraphrase, this really is a set of common sense set of measures that is not big political at all. It's just something that obviously needs to be done. I'm speaking to amendments 70 and 81, to which I attached my name, and also speaking from a Noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb who tabled 86, 120, 121 A and 121 B just briefly on the first two.
I think we have to set the context here. Over a week ago, the Committee on Climate Change came out and told the country that we have to be told the government that we have to be preparing for two degrees of warming by 2050. And even more critically, perhaps in the context of this bill, the government is in the country is not yet adapted to the current levels of warming. We already have. And we are as we are in so many other areas, not just flooding, but also heat and cold.
We are building homes that immediately need to be retrofitted, or homes that are setting people up for months, if not years of misery, and the kind of measures that are covered by amendment 70. If a home is flooded, if there has those measures, it's possible to clean the home up and potentially for people to move in back in quite quickly. If it doesn't have those measures. It's not only the cost and the issues of the cost of insurance, it's also months or even years of misery before the any way that home is occupied viable again.
And that is just we should not be building homes in that condition. And where homes are being retrofitted, they should be made to be prepared for that. So that's 70 and 81 and just on 81. I spoke extensively at committee. So I will just repeat the phrase the flood plain is not beside the river. The floodplain is part of the river. But moving to my noble friends amendments. These are about the other side of this. Not dealing with the flood water rushing down the river, or indeed the flood water.
The surface water that's rushing off the hard surfaces that is so typical of so many areas, or indeed the impounded soils that reflect so much of our land management. Now, this is talking about saying, let's catch that water, let's use that water in the right kind of way. It's talking about having infrastructure systems that have sustainable harvesting. We talk quite a lot about water butts at committee, having use of distribution of fit for purpose water by residents. The fact that we still use massive quantities of extensively, both in financial and energy terms, treated drinking water for all kinds of purposes where you don't need anything like that.
Quality makes no sense at all. And this is also, of course, about reducing costs. We have a cost of living crisis. If you can use free water rather than water that you have to pay for, then that's a win win all round. So and this also just to mention specifically 120 water efficiency, making sure the design minimises the amount of water use. So these are all really practical things. And it's hard to see any reason why anyone could argue they bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry. My register of interest. Particularly that I. Chair. Of.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Two noble Lady who've just spoken, demonstrating the breadth of support for this set of amendments around the House. And as the noble around the House. And as the noble Lady Baroness with us, I think, just said, to paraphrase, this really is a set of common sense set of measures that is not big political at all. It's just something that obviously needs to be done. I'm speaking to amendments 70 and 81, to which I attached my name, and also speaking from a Noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb who tabled 86, 120, 121 A and 121 B just briefly on the first two.
I think we have to set the context here. Over a week ago, the Committee on Climate Change came out and told the country that we have to be told the government that we have to be preparing for two degrees of warming by 2050. And even more critically, perhaps in the context of this bill, the government is in the country is not yet adapted to the current levels of warming. We already have. And we are as we are in so many other areas, not just flooding, but also heat and cold.
We are building homes that immediately need to be retrofitted, or homes that are setting people up for months, if not years of misery, and the kind of measures that are covered by amendment 70. If a home is flooded, if there has those measures, it's possible to clean the home up and potentially for people to move in back in quite quickly. If it doesn't have those measures. It's not only the cost and the issues of the cost of insurance, it's also months or even years of misery before the any way that home is occupied viable again.
And that is just we should not be building homes in that condition. And where homes are being retrofitted, they should be made to be prepared for that. So that's 70 and 81 and just on 81. I spoke extensively at committee. So I will just repeat the phrase the flood plain is not beside the river. The floodplain is part of the river. But moving to my noble friends amendments. These are about the other side of this. Not dealing with the flood water rushing down the river, or indeed the flood water.
The surface water that's rushing off the hard surfaces that is so typical of so many areas, or indeed the impounded soils that reflect so much of our land management. Now, this is talking about saying, let's catch that water, let's use that water in the right kind of way. It's talking about having infrastructure systems that have sustainable harvesting. We talk quite a lot about water butts at committee, having use of distribution of fit for purpose water by residents. The fact that we still use massive quantities of extensively, both in financial and energy terms, treated drinking water for all kinds of purposes where you don't need anything like that.
Quality makes no sense at all. And this is also, of course, about reducing costs. We have a cost of living crisis. If you can use free water rather than water that you have to pay for, then that's a win win all round. So and this also just to mention specifically 120 water efficiency, making sure the design minimises the amount of water use. So these are all really practical things. And it's hard to see any reason why anyone could argue they bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry. My register of interest. Particularly that I. Chair. Of.
20:40
Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. A company that. Advises people on. The sustainability and therefore
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The sustainability and therefore water very. Centrally to that. I want to encourage the government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
want to encourage the government. To move on this subject. I hope. They'll allow me to do so by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pointing out that the previous government. Still has to explain. How it managed. To get.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To get. Rid of the. Regulations. Which would have. Meant that instead. Of building a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of building a. Million and a half homes which. Are not. Fit for the future and which have got to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
which have got to. Be retrofitted, we reduce the opportunities of building.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opportunities of building. that. When. People sold a House. It was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When. People sold a House. It was Fit for the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for the government actually, to show that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government actually, to show that it's changed that way of looking at. Things. And I am very surprised that it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I am very surprised that it hasn't done so on this very central issue of water, because we know what is going to happen. There aren't many cents, not many things in life which are certain, but it is certain that we're going to have too little water at some times of the year, and very much too much water at other times of the year. And therefore I wonder why the government hasn't jumped up to say what good amendments these are.
And this is exactly what we should have. I don't always agree with Baroness with Penny, but the comment that she made, which is that this is obvious, this is what we should be doing. There shouldn't be any argument about it. So why are we not doing it? I have to say, when I was chairman of the Climate Change Committee, one of the problems was that the adaptation side of it did not have the same statutory role, which the mitigation part has, and therefore there is no doubt that historically we have not adapted fast enough and we need to adapt very much fast.
So I finish by saying to the noble Lady, if we don't start putting right the new houses, when we've got so much history of old houses that are going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to have to be done. Then all we. Do is to build a greater problem
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Do is to build a greater problem for ourselves, for our children. And that is unacceptable. And it's very that is unacceptable. And it's very much more unacceptable, if I may finish with the comments which were made about the government saying, made about the government saying, well, well, designers may use the best advice. The problem is that if they don't use the best advice, then they don't use the best advice, then people are selling houses to people who are going to have to pay the who are going to have to pay the cost of retrofitting.
So the House builders are making profits and builders are making profits and taking that money and not building houses which are suitable. And it's houses which are suitable. And it's the duty of the government to insist that the standards are such that that the standards are such that when you buy a House, you can rely, at least for some reasonable time on at least for some reasonable time on it being proper and being fit for the future. So I do hope the the future.
So I do hope the Minister will be extremely generous in her acceptance of these in her acceptance of these amendments, and if not, she'll promise to come back with amendments which will do what? As Baroness Bennett said, everybody needs and knows needs to be done.
Lord Deben (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. A company that. Advises people on. The sustainability and therefore
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The sustainability and therefore water very. Centrally to that. I want to encourage the government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
want to encourage the government. To move on this subject. I hope. They'll allow me to do so by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pointing out that the previous government. Still has to explain. How it managed. To get.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To get. Rid of the. Regulations. Which would have. Meant that instead. Of building a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of building a. Million and a half homes which. Are not. Fit for the future and which have got to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
which have got to. Be retrofitted, we reduce the opportunities of building.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opportunities of building. that. When. People sold a House. It was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When. People sold a House. It was Fit for the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for the government actually, to show that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government actually, to show that it's changed that way of looking at. Things. And I am very surprised that it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I am very surprised that it hasn't done so on this very central issue of water, because we know what is going to happen. There aren't many cents, not many things in life which are certain, but it is certain that we're going to have too little water at some times of the year, and very much too much water at other times of the year. And therefore I wonder why the government hasn't jumped up to say what good amendments these are.
And this is exactly what we should have. I don't always agree with Baroness with Penny, but the comment that she made, which is that this is obvious, this is what we should be doing. There shouldn't be any argument about it. So why are we not doing it? I have to say, when I was chairman of the Climate Change Committee, one of the problems was that the adaptation side of it did not have the same statutory role, which the mitigation part has, and therefore there is no doubt that historically we have not adapted fast enough and we need to adapt very much fast.
So I finish by saying to the noble Lady, if we don't start putting right the new houses, when we've got so much history of old houses that are going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to have to be done. Then all we. Do is to build a greater problem
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Do is to build a greater problem for ourselves, for our children. And that is unacceptable. And it's very that is unacceptable. And it's very much more unacceptable, if I may finish with the comments which were made about the government saying, made about the government saying, well, well, designers may use the best advice. The problem is that if they don't use the best advice, then they don't use the best advice, then people are selling houses to people who are going to have to pay the who are going to have to pay the cost of retrofitting.
So the House builders are making profits and builders are making profits and taking that money and not building houses which are suitable. And it's houses which are suitable. And it's the duty of the government to insist that the standards are such that that the standards are such that when you buy a House, you can rely, at least for some reasonable time on at least for some reasonable time on it being proper and being fit for the future. So I do hope the the future.
So I do hope the Minister will be extremely generous in her acceptance of these in her acceptance of these amendments, and if not, she'll promise to come back with amendments which will do what? As Baroness Bennett said, everybody needs and knows needs to be done.
20:42
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
Although. we've held at committee stage, indeed, many of these amendments and their aims define whether this bill meets the climate reality of what is happening today or continues to repeat mistakes of the past. Amendments 70 strengthens the requirement that planning decisions consider cumulative flood risk two. Many developments are still approved on already saturated land, leaving new residents vulnerable and the taxpayer to pick up the cost of recurring floods. As our colleague in the Commons, Gideon Amos, argued, nobody should have to deal with raw sewage coming into their home and garden when the flood waters surge.
Yet this remains for many a lived experience right now. Today for thousands, because sustainable drainage rules have not been made mandatory, amendment 70 ensures that floodplain development decisions properly account for these realities. Amendment 81 would require local plans to align with catchment wide flood mitigation strategies, something long overdue. After all, my Lords, flooding has no respect for or understanding of council boundaries, so planning policies must be equally a joined up to match them. This amendment will prevent the patchwork approach critics have warned has left entire communities at risk.
Amendment 86 focuses on sustainable drainage systems. Suds, echoing the unfulfilled recommendations as mentioned by the no. Lady McIntosh of the Pitt Review from 2008, and the On Our Own bench is a long standing call to commence schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. These systems manage rain for where it lands, reduce sewage overload and help alleviate combined sewer overflows, reducing the unacceptable discharge of sewage which has been witnessed so often in flood events.
Amendments 120 and 120 A shift focus from drainage to water efficiency. In the long term supply, they would require the Secretary of State to issue national guidance promoting water reuse, rainwater harvesting, greywater systems and distributed storage development scale my Lords. These are pragmatic, untried, untested approaches to reducing both flooding and water scarcity. Two sides of the same crisis, which increasingly, increasingly confront so many of our UK communities. Taken together, all of these amendments turn abstract sustainability pledges into enforceable planning duties at a time when the government's own reviews have concluded that the current policy is simply not working.
We on these benches believe these fixes are essential, not optional. Our planning system must no longer treat flooding as an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
afterthought, but as a central test. Of responsible. Design, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to these very useful amendments.
Yet this remains for many a lived experience right now. Today for thousands, because sustainable drainage rules have not been made mandatory, amendment 70 ensures that floodplain development decisions properly account for these realities. Amendment 81 would require local plans to align with catchment wide flood mitigation strategies, something long overdue. After all, my Lords, flooding has no respect for or understanding of council boundaries, so planning policies must be equally a joined up to match them. This amendment will prevent the patchwork approach critics have warned has left entire communities at risk.
Amendment 86 focuses on sustainable drainage systems. Suds, echoing the unfulfilled recommendations as mentioned by the no. Lady McIntosh of the Pitt Review from 2008, and the On Our Own bench is a long standing call to commence schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. These systems manage rain for where it lands, reduce sewage overload and help alleviate combined sewer overflows, reducing the unacceptable discharge of sewage which has been witnessed so often in flood events.
Amendments 120 and 120 A shift focus from drainage to water efficiency. In the long term supply, they would require the Secretary of State to issue national guidance promoting water reuse, rainwater harvesting, greywater systems and distributed storage development scale my Lords. These are pragmatic, untried, untested approaches to reducing both flooding and water scarcity. Two sides of the same crisis, which increasingly, increasingly confront so many of our UK communities. Taken together, all of these amendments turn abstract sustainability pledges into enforceable planning duties at a time when the government's own reviews have concluded that the current policy is simply not working.
We on these benches believe these fixes are essential, not optional. Our planning system must no longer treat flooding as an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
afterthought, but as a central test. Of responsible. Design, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to these very useful amendments.
20:46
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
these very useful amendments. my Lords, I'm very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her commitment to this Pickering for her commitment to this flooding issue that impacts far too many households in this country. And as our climate changes, is likely to impact far more new housing built on floodplains since 2009 is not able to be reassured under flood ray, supposedly because that housing does not need it. However, as my noble friend points out, that is not the case.
Our amendment 70 requires greater flood resilience measures if we are not to rule out building on floodplains entirely, it seems eminently sensible to help protect homeowners and ensure that insurance is available at an affordable price. And we support this. Amendment. 70 the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb makes strong points in amendments 86 one 2121 A and 121 B, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clean drinking water in our country is a finite resource and measures to improve efficiency, analyse demand and increase reuse are sensible and I would welcome any comments from the noble Baroness to the Minister that shows what the government is already doing and plans to do to address these matters.
However, we would not be in support of adding this to our already overburdened planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
process. my Lords, I thank you to all noble Lords have taken part in the
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
these very useful amendments. my Lords, I'm very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her commitment to this Pickering for her commitment to this flooding issue that impacts far too many households in this country. And as our climate changes, is likely to impact far more new housing built on floodplains since 2009 is not able to be reassured under flood ray, supposedly because that housing does not need it. However, as my noble friend points out, that is not the case.
Our amendment 70 requires greater flood resilience measures if we are not to rule out building on floodplains entirely, it seems eminently sensible to help protect homeowners and ensure that insurance is available at an affordable price. And we support this. Amendment. 70 the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb makes strong points in amendments 86 one 2121 A and 121 B, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clean drinking water in our country is a finite resource and measures to improve efficiency, analyse demand and increase reuse are sensible and I would welcome any comments from the noble Baroness to the Minister that shows what the government is already doing and plans to do to address these matters.
However, we would not be in support of adding this to our already overburdened planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
process. my Lords, I thank you to all noble Lords have taken part in the
20:47
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)
noble Lords have taken part in the debate. Can I firstly address amendments 70 and 81 concerning flood risk and resilience within the planning system? They draw attention to the important matter of how we prepare for and mitigate the impacts of flooding, particularly in the light of the growing challenges posed by climate change. The government treats these concerns with the utmost seriousness. We're aware of the distress, disruption and financial cost that flooding brings, so ably illustrated by the noble Baroness Grender and of the heightened risks associated with a changing climate and of the necessity to maintain a robust but proportionate framework for managing these risks.
Let me begin with amendment 72, which seeks to require flood resilience measures in new homes located in areas of high flood risk, as has been made clear in our previous debates, enhancing the resilience of properties exposed to flood risk is indeed an important objective, which I know we all share across the House in support of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
building. Regulations already promote. Flood resilient. Construction in flood prone areas
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Construction in flood prone areas through approved document CE, whilst ensuring that where properties do not require additional measures, they are not subject to undue burdens. Turning next to amendment 81, this seeks to impose a statutory 81, this seeks to impose a statutory ban on residential development in Flood zone three. While we agree with the principle of steering development away from areas at highest flood risk, this amendment would prohibit development even in major urban areas like Holland, central London, which although within flood zone three, are within flood zone three, are protected by robust engineered flood defences.
Such a blanket ban will prevent development from coming forward that could otherwise be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Instead, the National Planning Policy Framework already provides strong safe guards directing development away from the most flood prone areas, including floodplains, prone areas, including floodplains, and makes clear that inappropriate development in these areas should be avoided. Our policy also ensures avoided. Our policy also ensures that new housing and most other development types are not permitted development types are not permitted in functional floodplains.
Flood zone three B where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is allowed, it must be proven safe for its lifetime with full consideration of the vulnerability of its users. The effectiveness of our current policy position is clear. In 20 2425, 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk, and these figures have remained stable over time. Finally, I would like to highlight that we are making a record £10.5 billion investment in flood and coastal erosion defences, the largest programme in history, including £300 million for natural flood management over a ten year period and unlocking further investment from the public, private and charitable sources.
Turning to amendments 86, 120 and 121. In the name of the noble Baroness. Oh and 121 B apologies in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Jay. Sorry, Baroness Jones. And I'm sorry she's not in a place, because it's. That would have been my first opportunity to welcome her back to the chamber, but ably moved by the noble Baroness Bennett, which concerns sustainable water management and which draws attention to the important need to reduce demand on water resources. The government fully acknowledges the critical nature of sustainable water management and water efficiency.
To address this issue. In September, the government launched it a consultation to review the water efficiency standards within the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Building Regulations 2010. This will. Ensure increased water efficiency
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ensure increased water efficiency for new housing and tighter standards for water stressed areas. standards for water stressed areas. The consultation includes a call for evidence on water reuse systems in new developments to enable even new developments to enable even greater water efficiency. We are investigating how we can bring investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely. Re-use of greywater or safely. Re-use of greywater or rainwater should be subject to careful policy consideration as any accidental, inadvertent or incompetent contamination of potable water could lead to a public health water could lead to a public health incident.
In support of this, we are also examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and construction sectors, ensuring that construction sectors, ensuring that they can safely install such systems. Additionally, in December systems. Additionally, in December last year, we updated our National Planning Policy Framework to expand the requirement for sustainable the requirement for sustainable drainage systems to all developments that have drainage implications. These systems can incorporate These systems can incorporate rainwater harvesting, which not only aids water storage, but also helps aids water storage, but also helps regulate flow rates from sites.
In the light of this, I am concerned that the additional measures proposed through amendment 86 would be duplicative and would remove the appropriateness of efficiency measures to be determined on a case by case basis. We must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements, as a one size fits all mandate may not be suitable in all local contexts. This can instead risk unintended consequences, such as increased expenses for developers and homeowners, and indeed may well slow down the housing delivery that we so desperately need.
Turning to amendment 120 planning authorities already consider water efficiency targets in applications and can set tighter, optional water efficiency standards through the planning process. Water efficiency standards and guidance are determined through building regulations and duplicating this, adding further monitoring and evaluation requirements could employ impose administrative and financial burdens on local authorities. Turning next to amendment 121, a planning authorities must already consider water supply and quality through strategic environmental assessment, also informed by strategic flood risk assessments.
While water efficiency standards are set and enforced through the building control process, we should not duplicate existing planning, guidance and building control processes. With regard to amendment 1 to 1 B, the government supports sustainable water management and water efficiency and is already giving consideration to how water reuse can reduce water scarcity and drainage and waste water pressures on growth where they are needed. For example, through the current consultation on building regulations and the associated call for evidence on water reuse systems and new development.
In addition to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for all new development with drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, planning policy also requires that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for water supply and wastewater. The existing statutory requirement that local planning authorities engage with specific consultees, such as the Environment Agency and Sewerage and Water Undertakers, when developing local plans, is supported by our planning guidance, which encourages early engagement between strategic policy making authorities and water and sewerage companies.
Strategic and local planning authorities will need to consider these requirements when preparing their spatial development strategies and local plans. I would therefore kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. Well, I'm most grateful to those who spoke in favour, particular Baroness Willis of Somerton and Baroness of my castle, Lord Gummer, and all who spoke in support, and I am deeply support, and I am deeply disappointed at the reaction from the Minister, because I think actually she made the case for precisely why these amendments are needed.
So I hope the behest of my Noble friend Lord Gummer. Noble friend Lord Gummer.
Let me begin with amendment 72, which seeks to require flood resilience measures in new homes located in areas of high flood risk, as has been made clear in our previous debates, enhancing the resilience of properties exposed to flood risk is indeed an important objective, which I know we all share across the House in support of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
building. Regulations already promote. Flood resilient. Construction in flood prone areas
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Construction in flood prone areas through approved document CE, whilst ensuring that where properties do not require additional measures, they are not subject to undue burdens. Turning next to amendment 81, this seeks to impose a statutory 81, this seeks to impose a statutory ban on residential development in Flood zone three. While we agree with the principle of steering development away from areas at highest flood risk, this amendment would prohibit development even in major urban areas like Holland, central London, which although within flood zone three, are within flood zone three, are protected by robust engineered flood defences.
Such a blanket ban will prevent development from coming forward that could otherwise be made safe for its lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Instead, the National Planning Policy Framework already provides strong safe guards directing development away from the most flood prone areas, including floodplains, prone areas, including floodplains, and makes clear that inappropriate development in these areas should be avoided. Our policy also ensures avoided. Our policy also ensures that new housing and most other development types are not permitted development types are not permitted in functional floodplains.
Flood zone three B where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is allowed, it must be proven safe for its lifetime with full consideration of the vulnerability of its users. The effectiveness of our current policy position is clear. In 20 2425, 96% of all planning decisions and 99% of all new homes proposed in planning applications complied with Environment Agency advice on flood risk, and these figures have remained stable over time. Finally, I would like to highlight that we are making a record £10.5 billion investment in flood and coastal erosion defences, the largest programme in history, including £300 million for natural flood management over a ten year period and unlocking further investment from the public, private and charitable sources.
Turning to amendments 86, 120 and 121. In the name of the noble Baroness. Oh and 121 B apologies in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Jay. Sorry, Baroness Jones. And I'm sorry she's not in a place, because it's. That would have been my first opportunity to welcome her back to the chamber, but ably moved by the noble Baroness Bennett, which concerns sustainable water management and which draws attention to the important need to reduce demand on water resources. The government fully acknowledges the critical nature of sustainable water management and water efficiency.
To address this issue. In September, the government launched it a consultation to review the water efficiency standards within the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Building Regulations 2010. This will. Ensure increased water efficiency
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ensure increased water efficiency for new housing and tighter standards for water stressed areas. standards for water stressed areas. The consultation includes a call for evidence on water reuse systems in new developments to enable even new developments to enable even greater water efficiency. We are investigating how we can bring investigating how we can bring technologies such as rainwater harvesting into new developments safely. Re-use of greywater or safely. Re-use of greywater or rainwater should be subject to careful policy consideration as any accidental, inadvertent or incompetent contamination of potable water could lead to a public health water could lead to a public health incident.
In support of this, we are also examining how we might upskill those in the plumbing and construction sectors, ensuring that construction sectors, ensuring that they can safely install such systems. Additionally, in December systems. Additionally, in December last year, we updated our National Planning Policy Framework to expand the requirement for sustainable the requirement for sustainable drainage systems to all developments that have drainage implications. These systems can incorporate These systems can incorporate rainwater harvesting, which not only aids water storage, but also helps aids water storage, but also helps regulate flow rates from sites.
In the light of this, I am concerned that the additional measures proposed through amendment 86 would be duplicative and would remove the appropriateness of efficiency measures to be determined on a case by case basis. We must remain mindful of not imposing blanket requirements, as a one size fits all mandate may not be suitable in all local contexts. This can instead risk unintended consequences, such as increased expenses for developers and homeowners, and indeed may well slow down the housing delivery that we so desperately need.
Turning to amendment 120 planning authorities already consider water efficiency targets in applications and can set tighter, optional water efficiency standards through the planning process. Water efficiency standards and guidance are determined through building regulations and duplicating this, adding further monitoring and evaluation requirements could employ impose administrative and financial burdens on local authorities. Turning next to amendment 121, a planning authorities must already consider water supply and quality through strategic environmental assessment, also informed by strategic flood risk assessments.
While water efficiency standards are set and enforced through the building control process, we should not duplicate existing planning, guidance and building control processes. With regard to amendment 1 to 1 B, the government supports sustainable water management and water efficiency and is already giving consideration to how water reuse can reduce water scarcity and drainage and waste water pressures on growth where they are needed. For example, through the current consultation on building regulations and the associated call for evidence on water reuse systems and new development.
In addition to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework for all new development with drainage implications to incorporate sustainable drainage systems, planning policy also requires that strategic policies should make sufficient provision for water supply and wastewater. The existing statutory requirement that local planning authorities engage with specific consultees, such as the Environment Agency and Sewerage and Water Undertakers, when developing local plans, is supported by our planning guidance, which encourages early engagement between strategic policy making authorities and water and sewerage companies.
Strategic and local planning authorities will need to consider these requirements when preparing their spatial development strategies and local plans. I would therefore kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. Well, I'm most grateful to those who spoke in favour, particular Baroness Willis of Somerton and Baroness of my castle, Lord Gummer, and all who spoke in support, and I am deeply support, and I am deeply disappointed at the reaction from the Minister, because I think actually she made the case for precisely why these amendments are needed.
So I hope the behest of my Noble friend Lord Gummer. Noble friend Lord Gummer.
20:55
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
Lord didn't even just takes me back to the noble Lady.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Might agree to come back at. The Third Reading. With amendments in her own name, but for the moment, I beg to withdraw the amendments. Your Lordship's pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be withdrawn. withdrawn. Amendment 71 Baroness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Might agree to come back at. The Third Reading. With amendments in her own name, but for the moment, I beg to withdraw the amendments. Your Lordship's pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be withdrawn. withdrawn. Amendment 71 Baroness.
20:56
20:56
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I. Speak to. First of all, thank the noble Earl of Earl of Clancarty for lending his support and his considerable knowledge and expertise to amendment. 71, and I forgot to speak to amendment 71 and 82. If I could take 82 first. This is a consequential amendment following on from amendment 71. If it finds
**** Possible New Speaker ****
from amendment 71. If it finds favour with the government and your. Lordships. And in particular, I draw I'm.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm. Calling for is that a local. Authority must have special regard to the desirability of preventing unreasonable restrictions for a business or facility resulting for a business or facility resulting from the implementation of the development. And it goes to the argument really set out in amendment argument really set out in amendment 71 as to why the agent of change principle needs to be adopted on a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
statutory basis. The minister. Replied, when I brought this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Replied, when I brought this forward and debated this. At that committee stage, that she felt it was already in the planning was already in the planning framework and that we didn't need a statutory footing. I was able to statutory footing. I was able to thank her for having the meeting with myself, where we briefly touched on the agent of change principle, and I draw attention,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
principle, and I draw attention, drawn her attention to the excellent letter. From the Music.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Venue Trust, who expressed their concern as to the agent of change principle not being on a statutory basis. At this time, many will be basis. At this time, many will be aware of that. The of the 360. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
aware of that. The of the 360. I spent so long preparing for my professional qualifications, I never. Experienced being a raver.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Experienced being a raver. So perhaps it's not too late, but I would just say that of the 366 I would just say that of the 366 small music venues in. Which Ed Sheeran played while learning his Sheeran played while learning his trade, over 150 have now closed at the 34 venues Oasis play to launch their careers. Only 11 remain, so I think. The figures speak for themselves. What is of concern at the moment is that the right noises are being made by the various departments, but they're not joined up.
So we have the Home Office responsible for licensing, looking at and have issued an updated section 182 guidance in February of this year. And they then go on to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
say. That it shouldn't be too onerous. I just. Repeat that that guidance
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I just. Repeat that that guidance is not statutory. Then we have the Department of Business and Trade and Department of Business and Trade and its policy paper of. Updated 14th August 2025. Its licensing policy sprint are not word to use, but that's apparently the expression is that's apparently the expression is being used a licensing policy sprint joint industry and a Majesty's joint industry and a Majesty's Government task force report recommendation ten of which is to make the Age of Change principle a factor that must be considered when making licensing decisions.
Then we making licensing decisions. Then we making licensing decisions. Then we have the task force. Licensing task force issues its report to force issues its report to government for consideration on the 31st of July 2025, calling for 31st of July 2025, calling for reform and wide ranging proposals reform and wide ranging proposals and the Task force today. That day, 31st of July 2025, the Licensing Task Force, made up of representatives from government, industry, police and local government, has issued its licensing policy.
Sprint. And then, of course, we have the Treasury that we understand is so important in moving this bill at pace through both houses in order that it would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be on the statute book. As soon as possible. As well as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As soon as possible. As well as the Department of Business and Trade Minister. Is this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is this. If the Minister is responsible for planning law, if the government for planning law, if the government is hoping to have growth, if we are trying to protect as many of the trying to protect as many of the remaining live music venues as we are, then what is the status of the policy? And I would make a plea that what we do need, and I say this, that we were very fortunate to have that we were very fortunate to have a licensing practitioner advise the committee of this House, the ad hoc committee of this House, the ad hoc Committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003.
And she is very Licensing Act 2003. And she is very firmly of the view, as are all those who are like minded practitioners,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. Where the agent. Of change is already embedded in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of change is already embedded in the money. Section 182 guidance. actually.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
actually. Do need. This to be put on a strong statutory basis. So with those few
**** Possible New Speaker ****
statutory basis. So with those few remarks that I beg to move. Proposed after. Clause 51. Insert the following new.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Clause as printed on the marshalled list. in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in. The name of Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. To which I have added my. Name.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I support amendment 82 as well. my Lords, I would first very briefly like to pay tribute to those
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I. Speak to. First of all, thank the noble Earl of Earl of Clancarty for lending his support and his considerable knowledge and expertise to amendment. 71, and I forgot to speak to amendment 71 and 82. If I could take 82 first. This is a consequential amendment following on from amendment 71. If it finds
**** Possible New Speaker ****
from amendment 71. If it finds favour with the government and your. Lordships. And in particular, I draw I'm.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm. Calling for is that a local. Authority must have special regard to the desirability of preventing unreasonable restrictions for a business or facility resulting for a business or facility resulting from the implementation of the development. And it goes to the argument really set out in amendment argument really set out in amendment 71 as to why the agent of change principle needs to be adopted on a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
statutory basis. The minister. Replied, when I brought this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Replied, when I brought this forward and debated this. At that committee stage, that she felt it was already in the planning was already in the planning framework and that we didn't need a statutory footing. I was able to statutory footing. I was able to thank her for having the meeting with myself, where we briefly touched on the agent of change principle, and I draw attention,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
principle, and I draw attention, drawn her attention to the excellent letter. From the Music.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Venue Trust, who expressed their concern as to the agent of change principle not being on a statutory basis. At this time, many will be basis. At this time, many will be aware of that. The of the 360. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
aware of that. The of the 360. I spent so long preparing for my professional qualifications, I never. Experienced being a raver.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Experienced being a raver. So perhaps it's not too late, but I would just say that of the 366 I would just say that of the 366 small music venues in. Which Ed Sheeran played while learning his Sheeran played while learning his trade, over 150 have now closed at the 34 venues Oasis play to launch their careers. Only 11 remain, so I think. The figures speak for themselves. What is of concern at the moment is that the right noises are being made by the various departments, but they're not joined up.
So we have the Home Office responsible for licensing, looking at and have issued an updated section 182 guidance in February of this year. And they then go on to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
say. That it shouldn't be too onerous. I just. Repeat that that guidance
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I just. Repeat that that guidance is not statutory. Then we have the Department of Business and Trade and Department of Business and Trade and its policy paper of. Updated 14th August 2025. Its licensing policy sprint are not word to use, but that's apparently the expression is that's apparently the expression is being used a licensing policy sprint joint industry and a Majesty's joint industry and a Majesty's Government task force report recommendation ten of which is to make the Age of Change principle a factor that must be considered when making licensing decisions.
Then we making licensing decisions. Then we making licensing decisions. Then we have the task force. Licensing task force issues its report to force issues its report to government for consideration on the 31st of July 2025, calling for 31st of July 2025, calling for reform and wide ranging proposals reform and wide ranging proposals and the Task force today. That day, 31st of July 2025, the Licensing Task Force, made up of representatives from government, industry, police and local government, has issued its licensing policy.
Sprint. And then, of course, we have the Treasury that we understand is so important in moving this bill at pace through both houses in order that it would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be on the statute book. As soon as possible. As well as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As soon as possible. As well as the Department of Business and Trade Minister. Is this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is this. If the Minister is responsible for planning law, if the government for planning law, if the government is hoping to have growth, if we are trying to protect as many of the trying to protect as many of the remaining live music venues as we are, then what is the status of the policy? And I would make a plea that what we do need, and I say this, that we were very fortunate to have that we were very fortunate to have a licensing practitioner advise the committee of this House, the ad hoc committee of this House, the ad hoc Committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003.
And she is very Licensing Act 2003. And she is very firmly of the view, as are all those who are like minded practitioners,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. Where the agent. Of change is already embedded in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of change is already embedded in the money. Section 182 guidance. actually.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
actually. Do need. This to be put on a strong statutory basis. So with those few
**** Possible New Speaker ****
statutory basis. So with those few remarks that I beg to move. Proposed after. Clause 51. Insert the following new.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Clause as printed on the marshalled list. in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in. The name of Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. To which I have added my. Name.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I support amendment 82 as well. my Lords, I would first very briefly like to pay tribute to those
21:02
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
who have argued for the Agent of Change principle for a length. Of time much. course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
course. The noble Baroness. Herself. Lord Clement Jones. Lord of bath and. Lord speller.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amongst others, some of whom, as Baroness McIntosh pointed out at committee, are sadly. No longer.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No longer. With us. I'm not going to repeat the. Arguments for the agent of change principle that I. Made at committee. Suffice to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Made at committee. Suffice to. Say. As indeed I've been making clear, it has been supported widely on a cross-party basis across.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on a cross-party basis across. The whole of Parliament. And has the backing of the music
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And has the backing of the music industry in particular, including. Many household names. thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
UK music and the Music Venue Trust, amongst others. For their briefings on this. My Lords, is Lord Foster.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of Bath said at committee stage. The committee, led. By the noble Lady. The Baroness, looking at the 2003
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Baroness, looking at the 2003 licensing legislation, were delighted. Delighted was the word they used that the then government agreed with the committee. But their experience has since then proved,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and it is now widely understood, the guidance that. Has been. In place is simply not enough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In place is simply not enough. Enough. It is not working. The main point here I want to make is to take issue with the Minister's statement at committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at committee. That embedding. These principles. In law, and I quote this is what. The minister said.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The minister said. Risks increasing the number. Of legal challenges. To development. my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And disagreeing with this conclusion, it is worth quoting fully what the Music Venue Trust say in response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in response. To. That statement by the Minister. And I quote. In terms. Of legal challenges. We believe
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the opposite. The Music. Venue Trust mostly makes planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
objections because because in italics, developers do not have to abide by agent of change. And therefore.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And therefore. Do not. If they had to. Abide from the off. We think. This would greatly reduce the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
number of objections we would put in. In cases where objections did have to be. Placed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Placed. They would be resolved much. More. Quickly because the objector would have legislation. To point. To, which would empower.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To, which would empower. The local authority to respond emphatically. my Lords, the Music Venue. Trust Point.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Trust Point. In particular, the significant distinction between Scotland where the agent of change is statutory, and England, where it is not. In
**** Possible New Speaker ****
comparative terms, the process in Scotland is straightforward. And open. In England it is characterised by avoidance.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
avoidance. And prevarication. my Lords want to make just a. Couple of other points. The government's consultation.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The government's consultation. That is currently. Out on pubs, many of which are also live music venues, makes it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
also live music venues, makes it even more imperative that the agent. Of. Change is legislated for to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Change is legislated for to create the certainty which is. Now required. Secondly, we are awaiting the imminent publication of the the imminent publication of the London Nightlife Taskforce report, which my Noble friend Bill Friberg referenced earlier today, which will certainly address planning regulations in relation to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
current. Concerns and live music venues. Whatever happens to this amendment. I hope the. Minister will look carefully at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister will look carefully at the recommendations contained within that report, which will have relevance also to the country as a whole.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whole. Finally. My Lords, this. Is an. Important amendment. If the noble Lady the Baroness wishes to take.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
wishes to take. This to a vote, I. Will certainly support her.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here. Lords. Just very briefly to say that live music events and things like
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
who have argued for the Agent of Change principle for a length. Of time much. course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
course. The noble Baroness. Herself. Lord Clement Jones. Lord of bath and. Lord speller.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amongst others, some of whom, as Baroness McIntosh pointed out at committee, are sadly. No longer.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No longer. With us. I'm not going to repeat the. Arguments for the agent of change principle that I. Made at committee. Suffice to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Made at committee. Suffice to. Say. As indeed I've been making clear, it has been supported widely on a cross-party basis across.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on a cross-party basis across. The whole of Parliament. And has the backing of the music
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And has the backing of the music industry in particular, including. Many household names. thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
UK music and the Music Venue Trust, amongst others. For their briefings on this. My Lords, is Lord Foster.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of Bath said at committee stage. The committee, led. By the noble Lady. The Baroness, looking at the 2003
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Baroness, looking at the 2003 licensing legislation, were delighted. Delighted was the word they used that the then government agreed with the committee. But their experience has since then proved,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and it is now widely understood, the guidance that. Has been. In place is simply not enough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In place is simply not enough. Enough. It is not working. The main point here I want to make is to take issue with the Minister's statement at committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at committee. That embedding. These principles. In law, and I quote this is what. The minister said.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The minister said. Risks increasing the number. Of legal challenges. To development. my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And disagreeing with this conclusion, it is worth quoting fully what the Music Venue Trust say in response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in response. To. That statement by the Minister. And I quote. In terms. Of legal challenges. We believe
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the opposite. The Music. Venue Trust mostly makes planning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
objections because because in italics, developers do not have to abide by agent of change. And therefore.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And therefore. Do not. If they had to. Abide from the off. We think. This would greatly reduce the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
number of objections we would put in. In cases where objections did have to be. Placed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Placed. They would be resolved much. More. Quickly because the objector would have legislation. To point. To, which would empower.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To, which would empower. The local authority to respond emphatically. my Lords, the Music Venue. Trust Point.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Trust Point. In particular, the significant distinction between Scotland where the agent of change is statutory, and England, where it is not. In
**** Possible New Speaker ****
comparative terms, the process in Scotland is straightforward. And open. In England it is characterised by avoidance.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
avoidance. And prevarication. my Lords want to make just a. Couple of other points. The government's consultation.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The government's consultation. That is currently. Out on pubs, many of which are also live music venues, makes it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
also live music venues, makes it even more imperative that the agent. Of. Change is legislated for to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Change is legislated for to create the certainty which is. Now required. Secondly, we are awaiting the imminent publication of the the imminent publication of the London Nightlife Taskforce report, which my Noble friend Bill Friberg referenced earlier today, which will certainly address planning regulations in relation to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
current. Concerns and live music venues. Whatever happens to this amendment. I hope the. Minister will look carefully at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister will look carefully at the recommendations contained within that report, which will have relevance also to the country as a whole.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
whole. Finally. My Lords, this. Is an. Important amendment. If the noble Lady the Baroness wishes to take.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
wishes to take. This to a vote, I. Will certainly support her.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here. Lords. Just very briefly to say that live music events and things like
21:05
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
live music events and things like this improve people's lives and the quality of life. You're going down there and you may annoy 1 or 2 people, but most people will benefit from it. It is an important part of community involvement, and making sure that they remain is something which this House should be taking
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seriously. Lords, I'm very. Grateful to my Noble friend Lady
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grateful to my Noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the Earl of Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Addington and. Others. Who've expressed their support
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Who've expressed their support for this amendment, as well as colleagues in another place similar bill was.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seriously. Lords, I'm very. Grateful to my Noble friend Lady
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grateful to my Noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the Earl of Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Addington and. Others. Who've expressed their support
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Who've expressed their support for this amendment, as well as colleagues in another place similar bill was.
21:06
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill was. Being considered there. Not least, Dame Caroline Caroline. Dynegy. The chairman. Of the culture, Media and Sport.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the culture, Media and Sport. Select Committee. In another. Place. As noble Lords have said, these. Are vital. Parts of our cultural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are vital. Parts of our cultural infrastructure. They are the reason that we can look forward with. Excitement to. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Musicians. The artists. And the talented cultural. also.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
also. A vital part of. Components in building not just communities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Where people want to live. With things to. Do, things that. Bring joy to their lives. And if the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And if the. Government wants the communities that. Are being built with. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are being built with. The commendable. Focus on new building, that it has to be vital. Living and attractive. Places.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Places. Then it's really important that. We encourage. Space for. Those who.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Those who. Are going to brighten our lives with cultural output. We've also. Seen in. Terms of the regeneration of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
other. Places. How important it is to. Have those. Those important. Bits.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bits. Of cultural infrastructure to help. Revitalise local areas.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Revitalise local areas. Like others, I. Commend the. Work of the Music Venues Trust. In this regard. They've campaigned long and hard
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They've campaigned long and hard about the plight of live music venues at a grassroots. Level.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Level. Honourable friend mentioned Ed Sheeran and. Oasis, whose careers. Were built on these grassroots venues. I'd.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
venues. I'd. Like to mention Sam Fender, who, and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Last week won the Mercury Music Prize. And was spotted in the Low Lights Tavern in North Shields. So many. Of Tavern in North Shields. So many. Of the artists that we like and enjoy. Today would not be here, were it not for those grassroots. Venues and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for those grassroots. Venues and. The Music venues trust is. Pointing out how many we are losing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
losing. Through all the many challenges. 43% of live music. not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not. Make a profit. They operate at very tiny margins. They're obviously contending.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the rise in National Insurance contributions that the government has set. And in last year's budget, it cut.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cut. Rate relief. From 75% to 40%. Adding a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
£7 million tax burden on these venues. Two so anything we can do to make it easier for the number of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make it easier for the number of grassroots music venues and bits of. Cultural infrastructure to. Grow rather than diminish, is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grow rather than diminish, is worth supporting. And I'd like to add my voice in support of those
**** Possible New Speaker ****
who've spoken for this amendment. my Lords, I. Strongly support amendment. 71, in the name of the Baroness
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill was. Being considered there. Not least, Dame Caroline Caroline. Dynegy. The chairman. Of the culture, Media and Sport.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the culture, Media and Sport. Select Committee. In another. Place. As noble Lords have said, these. Are vital. Parts of our cultural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are vital. Parts of our cultural infrastructure. They are the reason that we can look forward with. Excitement to. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Musicians. The artists. And the talented cultural. also.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
also. A vital part of. Components in building not just communities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Where people want to live. With things to. Do, things that. Bring joy to their lives. And if the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And if the. Government wants the communities that. Are being built with. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are being built with. The commendable. Focus on new building, that it has to be vital. Living and attractive. Places.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Places. Then it's really important that. We encourage. Space for. Those who.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Those who. Are going to brighten our lives with cultural output. We've also. Seen in. Terms of the regeneration of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
other. Places. How important it is to. Have those. Those important. Bits.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bits. Of cultural infrastructure to help. Revitalise local areas.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Revitalise local areas. Like others, I. Commend the. Work of the Music Venues Trust. In this regard. They've campaigned long and hard
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They've campaigned long and hard about the plight of live music venues at a grassroots. Level.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Level. Honourable friend mentioned Ed Sheeran and. Oasis, whose careers. Were built on these grassroots venues. I'd.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
venues. I'd. Like to mention Sam Fender, who, and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Last week won the Mercury Music Prize. And was spotted in the Low Lights Tavern in North Shields. So many. Of Tavern in North Shields. So many. Of the artists that we like and enjoy. Today would not be here, were it not for those grassroots. Venues and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for those grassroots. Venues and. The Music venues trust is. Pointing out how many we are losing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
losing. Through all the many challenges. 43% of live music. not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not. Make a profit. They operate at very tiny margins. They're obviously contending.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
With the rise in National Insurance contributions that the government has set. And in last year's budget, it cut.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
cut. Rate relief. From 75% to 40%. Adding a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
£7 million tax burden on these venues. Two so anything we can do to make it easier for the number of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
make it easier for the number of grassroots music venues and bits of. Cultural infrastructure to. Grow rather than diminish, is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grow rather than diminish, is worth supporting. And I'd like to add my voice in support of those
**** Possible New Speaker ****
who've spoken for this amendment. my Lords, I. Strongly support amendment. 71, in the name of the Baroness
21:08
Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
71, in the name of the Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Earl of Clancarty. As has been said, this is a long standing issue, and this is a long standing issue, and it lies at the heart of how new development coexists with existing businesses and community facilities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in. The planning. System, ensuring that. When our new.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When our new. Home are built near established venues and facilities. The newcomers, not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Those already there, bear the. Responsibility for mitigating any resulting conflicts. The crisis resulting conflicts. The crisis facing grassroots music then use is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
facing grassroots music then use is according. To the Music Venue. grassroots.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
grassroots. Music venue every fortnight in 2020. For almost half. Of 43.8%.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of 43.8%. Now operate at a loss. With a quarter facing imminent closure. This follows the loss of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This follows the loss of. 16% of all such venues in 2023
**** Possible New Speaker ****
16% of all such venues in 2023 in. A single year. The pattern is sadly familiar a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The pattern is sadly familiar a flats. Are. Built nearby, residents complain,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Built nearby, residents complain, and the venue faces crippling restrictions or closure. The iconic The Night and Day cafe in Manchester, the Ministry of Sound in London. Both have fought costly, protracted battles simply.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protracted battles simply. To continue existing. The agent of Change principle were meant to prevent exactly this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After years of campaigning led by the Music Venue. Trust and supported. As the noble Earl has said, by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As the noble Earl has said, by Sir Paul McCartney, Brian Eno and many others, it was finally incorporated into the National incorporated into the National Policy Framework in 2018. Yet seven years on, that policy has fallen short.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So why? Because the guidance alone cannot arise. Override statutory duties
**** Possible New Speaker ****
arise. Override statutory duties under environmental health law, local. Authorities must still investigate noise complaints. And issue.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
issue. Abatement notices, even. When the source of. That noise long predates the. New development. The principle exists in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
exists in. Spirit but. Lacks legal force. This amendment. Would. Put.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Put. That right. It establishes a statutory duty spanning both planning and licensing functions. It
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planning and licensing functions. It requires developers to submit proper noise impact assessments. To mitigate the impact of the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Schemes on existing venues and, crucially. For decision. Makers to consider chronology,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
who was there first must matter in law, not just in principle. And this is not only about.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And this is not only about. logic. Protects churches. From complaints about bells, pubs from complaints about bells, pubs from garden noise, sports clubs from cheering crowds. Indeed. Any established community.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Use threatened by. Incompatible new development. My Lords, this is a modest but essential reform.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
modest but essential reform. One that will help stem the loss of revenues. The venues that make of revenues. The venues that make our towns and cities vibrant give local authorities the clarity they. Need to balance growth with cultural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Need to balance growth with cultural government. To. Support. It and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It and. extraordinarily. Brief. Because the noble Lord. Phrasebook has.
Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
71, in the name of the Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Earl of Clancarty. As has been said, this is a long standing issue, and this is a long standing issue, and it lies at the heart of how new development coexists with existing businesses and community facilities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in. The planning. System, ensuring that. When our new.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When our new. Home are built near established venues and facilities. The newcomers, not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Those already there, bear the. Responsibility for mitigating any resulting conflicts. The crisis resulting conflicts. The crisis facing grassroots music then use is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
facing grassroots music then use is according. To the Music Venue. grassroots.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
grassroots. Music venue every fortnight in 2020. For almost half. Of 43.8%.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of 43.8%. Now operate at a loss. With a quarter facing imminent closure. This follows the loss of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This follows the loss of. 16% of all such venues in 2023
**** Possible New Speaker ****
16% of all such venues in 2023 in. A single year. The pattern is sadly familiar a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The pattern is sadly familiar a flats. Are. Built nearby, residents complain,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Built nearby, residents complain, and the venue faces crippling restrictions or closure. The iconic The Night and Day cafe in Manchester, the Ministry of Sound in London. Both have fought costly, protracted battles simply.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protracted battles simply. To continue existing. The agent of Change principle were meant to prevent exactly this.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After years of campaigning led by the Music Venue. Trust and supported. As the noble Earl has said, by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As the noble Earl has said, by Sir Paul McCartney, Brian Eno and many others, it was finally incorporated into the National incorporated into the National Policy Framework in 2018. Yet seven years on, that policy has fallen short.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So why? Because the guidance alone cannot arise. Override statutory duties
**** Possible New Speaker ****
arise. Override statutory duties under environmental health law, local. Authorities must still investigate noise complaints. And issue.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
issue. Abatement notices, even. When the source of. That noise long predates the. New development. The principle exists in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
exists in. Spirit but. Lacks legal force. This amendment. Would. Put.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Put. That right. It establishes a statutory duty spanning both planning and licensing functions. It
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planning and licensing functions. It requires developers to submit proper noise impact assessments. To mitigate the impact of the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Schemes on existing venues and, crucially. For decision. Makers to consider chronology,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
who was there first must matter in law, not just in principle. And this is not only about.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And this is not only about. logic. Protects churches. From complaints about bells, pubs from complaints about bells, pubs from garden noise, sports clubs from cheering crowds. Indeed. Any established community.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Use threatened by. Incompatible new development. My Lords, this is a modest but essential reform.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
modest but essential reform. One that will help stem the loss of revenues. The venues that make of revenues. The venues that make our towns and cities vibrant give local authorities the clarity they. Need to balance growth with cultural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Need to balance growth with cultural government. To. Support. It and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It and. extraordinarily. Brief. Because the noble Lord. Phrasebook has.
21:11
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Phrasebook has. Extent explained explicitly what this is about and why it's this is about and why it's desperately needed. And so I add my name to all those who have spoken so passionately in favour of it, and I look forward to the minister with equal passion agreeing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To it.
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Phrasebook has. Extent explained explicitly what this is about and why it's this is about and why it's desperately needed. And so I add my name to all those who have spoken so passionately in favour of it, and I look forward to the minister with equal passion agreeing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To it.
21:12
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To it. Thank you. I'm going to try and be brief, but I'm afraid I'm going Democrats. Just occasionally one has to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just occasionally one has to accept this. I rise also to offer our. Support for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
our. Support for. Amendment. 71 and amendment 82, tabled by Knight Noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. As Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, it is a principle of fairness. If you're the one that's bringing change, you should be the one that's. Responsible for managing its impact. And yet, time and time again, we have seen valued businesses, particularly in live music, hospitality and cultural sectors, threaten or closed down due to new developments that arrive without sufficient mitigation, without proper regard to the context within which they're being introduced.
If you build a House on the edge of a cricket pitch, don't be surprised to see the occasional cricket ball flying into your garden. The reality is that guidance, however well-intentioned, is inconsistently applied. Local authorities are left without a clear statutory duty to uphold. The agent of change principle. Amendment 82 extends this principle to licensing regime. We would also support. We see this as a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill, one that balances the need for new development with the equally important need to protect existing cultural, social and economic structures.
We on these benches are pleased to support this principle and we hope that the government will recognise the value of giving it clear statutory footing. And I ask the Minister for an assurance on these matters that existing businesses and community facilities will not be put at risk from subsequent developments.
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To it. Thank you. I'm going to try and be brief, but I'm afraid I'm going Democrats. Just occasionally one has to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just occasionally one has to accept this. I rise also to offer our. Support for.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
our. Support for. Amendment. 71 and amendment 82, tabled by Knight Noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. As Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. As other noble Lords have said, it is a principle of fairness. If you're the one that's bringing change, you should be the one that's. Responsible for managing its impact. And yet, time and time again, we have seen valued businesses, particularly in live music, hospitality and cultural sectors, threaten or closed down due to new developments that arrive without sufficient mitigation, without proper regard to the context within which they're being introduced.
If you build a House on the edge of a cricket pitch, don't be surprised to see the occasional cricket ball flying into your garden. The reality is that guidance, however well-intentioned, is inconsistently applied. Local authorities are left without a clear statutory duty to uphold. The agent of change principle. Amendment 82 extends this principle to licensing regime. We would also support. We see this as a constructive and proportionate improvement to the Bill, one that balances the need for new development with the equally important need to protect existing cultural, social and economic structures.
We on these benches are pleased to support this principle and we hope that the government will recognise the value of giving it clear statutory footing. And I ask the Minister for an assurance on these matters that existing businesses and community facilities will not be put at risk from subsequent developments.
21:13
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. a very interesting debate on this topic. Next July, I'll have the benefit of five days of Oasis concerts in the fantastic venue at Knebworth House, which is just about a mile away from my House. And this summer we enjoyed Old Town Live, a day long festival for local bands. Hopefully some of the successors to Oasis. We never know both of these I can hear and enjoy from my House, and they represent the important cultural role of music venues and their place in the kind of ladder of musical talent that not only contributes so much to our culture in this country, but also makes an enormous contribution to our economy as well.
So I'm saying that to say, you know, I understand the issue here, and the government shares the desire to ensure that new homes do not undermine the operation of long established businesses in their local area, be they music venues or other cultural venues. The Agent of Change principle is embedded into the planning system, where the operation of an existing premises could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity. The responsibility lies with the applicant or agent of change for putting suitable mitigation in place.
So whether that's engineering solutions, layout, planning conditions or mitigating the impact through noise insulation. This policy forms part of the National Planning Policy framework. Local planning authorities must already have regard to it where it is relevant to a planning decision. Now we're exploring how we can make the agent of change policy and planning as clear as possible through our new national policies for decision making, which we will consult on this year. We've recently launched a call for evidence, which.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Seeks. Views on how. We can better apply the principle in licensing, and this will. Reduce. Inconsistent decisions while
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Inconsistent decisions while ensuring that we have the flexibility for local authorities to balance the needs of businesses with balance the needs of businesses with housing growth. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw her amendments. Can I just ask. Why the government won't make it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Why the government won't make it statutory? It's a very, very simple question. I think I've explained several
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think I've explained several times during the course of this bill that it's I don't think it's correct to say that the National Planning to say that the National Planning Policy framework is not a statutory framework in itself, but it sits within the statutory framework of within the statutory framework of planning. And that's why. But we need it to be more flexible than a need it to be more flexible than a statutory framework, because then it can change as times change. And when we bring in these policies, they we bring in these policies, they they won't have they won't be coming through as pieces of law.
They'll be through as pieces of law. They'll be planning policies so that they can be flexible and adapt to the situation as the situation changes. situation as the situation changes. That's a very important part of planning, and the national planning planning, and the national planning policy framework must maintain that degree of flexibility. Otherwise, every time we want to change it, we have to come back through Parliament and that that wouldn't be agile enough to deal with the changing situation. Very seldom I lost for situation.
Very seldom I lost for words, but I am hugely disappointed by the response to the short debate. by the response to the short debate. I think I'm grateful to all those who spoken in support at the Earl of Clancarty. I think expressed the considerable cost that is made for considerable cost that is made for those who have to take mitigation measures. I think the noble Lord measures. I think the noble Lord Freiberg set out why it is currently not working. I'm just repeat what he said.
So I'm saying that to say, you know, I understand the issue here, and the government shares the desire to ensure that new homes do not undermine the operation of long established businesses in their local area, be they music venues or other cultural venues. The Agent of Change principle is embedded into the planning system, where the operation of an existing premises could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity. The responsibility lies with the applicant or agent of change for putting suitable mitigation in place.
So whether that's engineering solutions, layout, planning conditions or mitigating the impact through noise insulation. This policy forms part of the National Planning Policy framework. Local planning authorities must already have regard to it where it is relevant to a planning decision. Now we're exploring how we can make the agent of change policy and planning as clear as possible through our new national policies for decision making, which we will consult on this year. We've recently launched a call for evidence, which.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Seeks. Views on how. We can better apply the principle in licensing, and this will. Reduce. Inconsistent decisions while
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Inconsistent decisions while ensuring that we have the flexibility for local authorities to balance the needs of businesses with balance the needs of businesses with housing growth. I would therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw her amendments. Can I just ask. Why the government won't make it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Why the government won't make it statutory? It's a very, very simple question. I think I've explained several
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think I've explained several times during the course of this bill that it's I don't think it's correct to say that the National Planning to say that the National Planning Policy framework is not a statutory framework in itself, but it sits within the statutory framework of within the statutory framework of planning. And that's why. But we need it to be more flexible than a need it to be more flexible than a statutory framework, because then it can change as times change. And when we bring in these policies, they we bring in these policies, they they won't have they won't be coming through as pieces of law.
They'll be through as pieces of law. They'll be planning policies so that they can be flexible and adapt to the situation as the situation changes. situation as the situation changes. That's a very important part of planning, and the national planning planning, and the national planning policy framework must maintain that degree of flexibility. Otherwise, every time we want to change it, we have to come back through Parliament and that that wouldn't be agile enough to deal with the changing situation. Very seldom I lost for situation.
Very seldom I lost for words, but I am hugely disappointed by the response to the short debate. by the response to the short debate. I think I'm grateful to all those who spoken in support at the Earl of Clancarty. I think expressed the considerable cost that is made for considerable cost that is made for those who have to take mitigation measures. I think the noble Lord measures. I think the noble Lord Freiberg set out why it is currently not working. I'm just repeat what he said.
21:17
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
That it is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Overridden by or it cannot override the noise abatement laws. override the noise abatement laws. And that's why I think that we're we're failing both developers and residents at this time. And I don't believe that we're given the clarity believe that we're given the clarity to licensing practitioners that they request. And that is precisely what Sarah Clover, who as our expert, Sarah Clover, who as our expert, specialist adviser to the committee, looking at the Licensing Act 2003.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
looking at the Licensing Act 2003. I think has. Pointed out on successive occasions. So while I will not occasions. So while I will not pressed for a vote and test actually allows at this stage, I do reserve
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the right to bring Further reading. To be withdrawn. Amendment finally withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Overridden by or it cannot override the noise abatement laws. override the noise abatement laws. And that's why I think that we're we're failing both developers and residents at this time. And I don't believe that we're given the clarity believe that we're given the clarity to licensing practitioners that they request. And that is precisely what Sarah Clover, who as our expert, Sarah Clover, who as our expert, specialist adviser to the committee, looking at the Licensing Act 2003.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
looking at the Licensing Act 2003. I think has. Pointed out on successive occasions. So while I will not occasions. So while I will not pressed for a vote and test actually allows at this stage, I do reserve
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the right to bring Further reading. To be withdrawn. Amendment finally withdrawn.
21:18
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
finally withdrawn. We come now to amendment 72. Lord test.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord test. Amendment 72, which addresses the issue of affordable housing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
delivery. I'm grateful for the support of the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill, Lord Carlile.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Carlile. Of Bury You. Baroness Bennett. And Manor Castle, and I know the noble Lord. Lord Young of Cookham wanted to add his name to this amendment. I declare interests as a vice president of the LGA and the Town and Country Planning Association. Honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I pay tribute. To shelter championing this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. My Lords, the amendment introduces a. New clause providing for regulations to. Ensure that affordable.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ensure that affordable. Housing actually. Gets delivered. Where it is a condition of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planning consent, usually through a so-called. Section 106 agreement. At the committee stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At the committee stage. I. Noted the problem only too familiar for many of us that. The housebuilders.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The housebuilders. Agree to provide a quota of affordable. Homes for local people, but these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Homes for local people, but these homes fail to. Materialise in the developments that actually. Get built.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The housebuilders back out of delivering some or all of the affordable homes they promised, with affordable homes they promised, with the excuse of changed viability. They say they have encountered unexpected.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
unexpected. Problems. Choosing from a long list of possibilities from the from possibilities from the from increased interest rates to unexpected site conditions, they claim it is no longer possible for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
claim it is no longer possible for them to make a clear profit of 20% or more. And it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And it. Is the affordable housing element that they insist must take the hit,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
despite that having been a condition of planning permission. My Lords. The noble Baroness, the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister may say that this is a matter for local authorities to handle. But as a report from the handle. But as a report from the National Audit Office set out in June of this year, negotiations between local planning authority planning departments and well resourced developers are hopelessly resourced developers are hopelessly unbalanced, with the latter employing expensive consultants and legal experts to find ways of negotiating their contributions down. Cash strapped councils are down. Cash strapped councils are unwilling to fight expensive legal battles and feel obliged to give in.
battles and feel obliged to give in. This amendment bolsters the position of the planners by ending the arguments and making the agreed arguments and making the agreed affordable housing element non-negotiable. It aims to ensure non-negotiable. It aims to ensure that developers actually deliver the affordable homes that were a fundamental reason for planning fundamental reason for planning consent being granted in the first place. The amendment adds a safety place. The amendment adds a safety net by obliging the housebuilder to provide a minimum of 20% of new homes in relevant developments to be for social rent or the percentage that is set out in the local authority's policy framework, the Local Plan, where it has one.
If that is higher. Importantly, the definition of social rent housing is that used by the regulator of social housing in its rent standard, although planners may also require some other forms of affordable housing like shared ownership and near market renting. The baseline of no less than 20% for the all important social rented housing is secured by this amendment. The 20% minimum for social rent is also a figure recommended by the New Towns Task Force, which reported last month.
Its report recommends a total of 40% for all the various kinds of affordable housing put together, with at least half of this 20% for social rent. This important requirement could be applied not just to new towns, but to all major developments. This amendment provides for that outcome. My Lords, nearly half of the nation's current programme of affordable homes comes from these planning obligations on the housebuilders. But as Lord Young noted, a committee stage, the CPRE has found that despite agreements by the housebuilders to produce an average of 34% of relevant developments as affordable housing, the actual figure has turned out to be just 18%, and shelter research has shown that in relation to the core social rent product, rather than the more up-market versions of affordable housing over the last 20 years, less than 3% of developers House building has been for social rent.
This is despite the fact that in most parts of the country, only the social rent accommodation is within the means of households in the lower half of the income distribution. My Lords the constant reneging by housebuilders from the contributions they agreed to make at the outset, makes this amendment an urgent one. Indeed, my Lords, I wonder if it's really worth all the time, money and effort to achieve so many new homes. If so few of those homes can meet the needs, the acute needs of those suffering most from the nation's housing shortages.
Instead, enforcement of an obligation that delivers at least 20% social rented housing would substantially enhance the value to the nation of building 1.5 million homes by 2030. I hope the noble Baroness the minister, will feel able to accept this amendment, at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
least in principle, and I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 51, insert the. Following new clause. As printed on the marshalled list. My.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My. Nevill friend Lord best has given an empirical. And quantitative.
Lord Best (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
finally withdrawn. We come now to amendment 72. Lord test.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord test. Amendment 72, which addresses the issue of affordable housing
**** Possible New Speaker ****
delivery. I'm grateful for the support of the noble Baroness Lady Thornhill, Lord Carlile.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Carlile. Of Bury You. Baroness Bennett. And Manor Castle, and I know the noble Lord. Lord Young of Cookham wanted to add his name to this amendment. I declare interests as a vice president of the LGA and the Town and Country Planning Association. Honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I pay tribute. To shelter championing this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. My Lords, the amendment introduces a. New clause providing for regulations to. Ensure that affordable.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ensure that affordable. Housing actually. Gets delivered. Where it is a condition of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planning consent, usually through a so-called. Section 106 agreement. At the committee stage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At the committee stage. I. Noted the problem only too familiar for many of us that. The housebuilders.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The housebuilders. Agree to provide a quota of affordable. Homes for local people, but these
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Homes for local people, but these homes fail to. Materialise in the developments that actually. Get built.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The housebuilders back out of delivering some or all of the affordable homes they promised, with affordable homes they promised, with the excuse of changed viability. They say they have encountered unexpected.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
unexpected. Problems. Choosing from a long list of possibilities from the from possibilities from the from increased interest rates to unexpected site conditions, they claim it is no longer possible for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
claim it is no longer possible for them to make a clear profit of 20% or more. And it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And it. Is the affordable housing element that they insist must take the hit,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
despite that having been a condition of planning permission. My Lords. The noble Baroness, the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister may say that this is a matter for local authorities to handle. But as a report from the handle. But as a report from the National Audit Office set out in June of this year, negotiations between local planning authority planning departments and well resourced developers are hopelessly resourced developers are hopelessly unbalanced, with the latter employing expensive consultants and legal experts to find ways of negotiating their contributions down. Cash strapped councils are down. Cash strapped councils are unwilling to fight expensive legal battles and feel obliged to give in.
battles and feel obliged to give in. This amendment bolsters the position of the planners by ending the arguments and making the agreed arguments and making the agreed affordable housing element non-negotiable. It aims to ensure non-negotiable. It aims to ensure that developers actually deliver the affordable homes that were a fundamental reason for planning fundamental reason for planning consent being granted in the first place. The amendment adds a safety place. The amendment adds a safety net by obliging the housebuilder to provide a minimum of 20% of new homes in relevant developments to be for social rent or the percentage that is set out in the local authority's policy framework, the Local Plan, where it has one.
If that is higher. Importantly, the definition of social rent housing is that used by the regulator of social housing in its rent standard, although planners may also require some other forms of affordable housing like shared ownership and near market renting. The baseline of no less than 20% for the all important social rented housing is secured by this amendment. The 20% minimum for social rent is also a figure recommended by the New Towns Task Force, which reported last month.
Its report recommends a total of 40% for all the various kinds of affordable housing put together, with at least half of this 20% for social rent. This important requirement could be applied not just to new towns, but to all major developments. This amendment provides for that outcome. My Lords, nearly half of the nation's current programme of affordable homes comes from these planning obligations on the housebuilders. But as Lord Young noted, a committee stage, the CPRE has found that despite agreements by the housebuilders to produce an average of 34% of relevant developments as affordable housing, the actual figure has turned out to be just 18%, and shelter research has shown that in relation to the core social rent product, rather than the more up-market versions of affordable housing over the last 20 years, less than 3% of developers House building has been for social rent.
This is despite the fact that in most parts of the country, only the social rent accommodation is within the means of households in the lower half of the income distribution. My Lords the constant reneging by housebuilders from the contributions they agreed to make at the outset, makes this amendment an urgent one. Indeed, my Lords, I wonder if it's really worth all the time, money and effort to achieve so many new homes. If so few of those homes can meet the needs, the acute needs of those suffering most from the nation's housing shortages.
Instead, enforcement of an obligation that delivers at least 20% social rented housing would substantially enhance the value to the nation of building 1.5 million homes by 2030. I hope the noble Baroness the minister, will feel able to accept this amendment, at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
least in principle, and I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 51, insert the. Following new clause. As printed on the marshalled list. My.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My. Nevill friend Lord best has given an empirical. And quantitative.
21:25
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Justification for this amendment, which I support, and I will not repeat what he said. What I. Will say.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will say. However, is what social. Rent housing does and why it's a necessity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
necessity. improves. Our society in many ways. It
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Our society in many ways. It creates the opportunity for stability for young families. It creates creates the opportunity for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
creates creates the opportunity for continuing education for young people in those families. It creates.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It creates. Loyalty to the town where they live, and it creates a history which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
live, and it creates a history which is developed into the future by those who live. In social housing. We often hear
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In social housing. We often hear these days people commenting on the fact that they're the first person
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fact that they're the first person who went to university in that family. Many of. Those people. Went to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Went to. University because they lived in social rent housing, with. The stability that. Enabled them with the support of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
educated. To. Go to university. And indeed, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Go to university. And indeed, I believe in this Parliament. There are many people. Who fall. Into that category.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Into that category. This is a living instrument. We're trying to create a system of social rent, housing that produces the growth that creates the flowers the growth that creates the flowers of our society, or at least many of the flowers of our society and gives
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the flowers of our society and gives of. Amen.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Justification for this amendment, which I support, and I will not repeat what he said. What I. Will say.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Will say. However, is what social. Rent housing does and why it's a necessity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
necessity. improves. Our society in many ways. It
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Our society in many ways. It creates the opportunity for stability for young families. It creates creates the opportunity for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
creates creates the opportunity for continuing education for young people in those families. It creates.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It creates. Loyalty to the town where they live, and it creates a history which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
live, and it creates a history which is developed into the future by those who live. In social housing. We often hear
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In social housing. We often hear these days people commenting on the fact that they're the first person
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fact that they're the first person who went to university in that family. Many of. Those people. Went to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Went to. University because they lived in social rent housing, with. The stability that. Enabled them with the support of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
educated. To. Go to university. And indeed, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Go to university. And indeed, I believe in this Parliament. There are many people. Who fall. Into that category.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Into that category. This is a living instrument. We're trying to create a system of social rent, housing that produces the growth that creates the flowers the growth that creates the flowers of our society, or at least many of the flowers of our society and gives
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the flowers of our society and gives of. Amen.
21:26
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. my Lords, I rise to support the Nova, Lord West and Carlisle on Nova, Lord West and Carlisle on behalf of my Noble friend Baroness Thornhill, who is unable to be here this evening. She's been got by the clergy that everyone is coming down with and so I'm just going to say some of the arguments that the noble Baroness Thornhill would have made. At its core, this is about trust. It is about trust between developers, local authorities and communities to actually deliver what the developers have said they would do.
And doesn't it just make your blood boil to hear and learn how often social housing has been promised, and how often it has failed to be delivered? Research from shelter shows that in some parts of England, as many as 40% of affordable homes initially promised are never delivered. The Local Government Association has estimated the more than 100,000 affordable homes have been lost over the past decade alone because of renegotiations, because of that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Absolute panto. Villain, the viability assessment, the viability assessment assessment, the viability assessment that is then used and prayed in aid to no longer deliver that social home for renting that is so critical and so important to society. My Lord Lords, best amendment would bring much needed transparency and restore the faith in a promise that has been broken again and again and again broken again and again and again over successive governments. And it would give councils the confidence that when they negotiate for affordable homes, these homes will actually materialise.
I know it's actually materialise. I know it's late and if the noble Lord best moves to a vote, we will be there moves to a vote, we will be there with him. I, I am very, very hopeful with him. I, I am very, very hopeful that the Conservative benches will join him as well. This is an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
absolute scandal and it has been a scandal for two too long. And we need. To restrict developers to deliver
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To restrict developers to deliver on their promise about social homes for rent.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for rent. But I begin by apologising for Gazumping, the noble Lord Young of Cookham. I'm always happy to take my name off amendments. For the record, name off amendments. For the record, in a case where we can demonstrate the political breadth. But I was very happy to sign the amendment 72. very happy to sign the amendment 72. In the name of noble Lord Lord best I. I'm just going to give one example. In July this year, what the district council had an application from Brookwood Homes to amend their permission for a 20 residence project in battle, East Sussex, to, project in battle, East Sussex, to, of course, zero homes for social rent.
And that is just one example. You think of a place where obviously we desperately need the social housing. I I'll stop there because I housing. I I'll stop there because I want to get to a vote. If the government doesn't give way. government doesn't give way.
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amen. my Lords, I rise to support the Nova, Lord West and Carlisle on Nova, Lord West and Carlisle on behalf of my Noble friend Baroness Thornhill, who is unable to be here this evening. She's been got by the clergy that everyone is coming down with and so I'm just going to say some of the arguments that the noble Baroness Thornhill would have made. At its core, this is about trust. It is about trust between developers, local authorities and communities to actually deliver what the developers have said they would do.
And doesn't it just make your blood boil to hear and learn how often social housing has been promised, and how often it has failed to be delivered? Research from shelter shows that in some parts of England, as many as 40% of affordable homes initially promised are never delivered. The Local Government Association has estimated the more than 100,000 affordable homes have been lost over the past decade alone because of renegotiations, because of that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Absolute panto. Villain, the viability assessment, the viability assessment assessment, the viability assessment that is then used and prayed in aid to no longer deliver that social home for renting that is so critical and so important to society. My Lord Lords, best amendment would bring much needed transparency and restore the faith in a promise that has been broken again and again and again broken again and again and again over successive governments. And it would give councils the confidence that when they negotiate for affordable homes, these homes will actually materialise.
I know it's actually materialise. I know it's late and if the noble Lord best moves to a vote, we will be there moves to a vote, we will be there with him. I, I am very, very hopeful with him. I, I am very, very hopeful that the Conservative benches will join him as well. This is an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
absolute scandal and it has been a scandal for two too long. And we need. To restrict developers to deliver
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To restrict developers to deliver on their promise about social homes for rent.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for rent. But I begin by apologising for Gazumping, the noble Lord Young of Cookham. I'm always happy to take my name off amendments. For the record, name off amendments. For the record, in a case where we can demonstrate the political breadth. But I was very happy to sign the amendment 72. very happy to sign the amendment 72. In the name of noble Lord Lord best I. I'm just going to give one example. In July this year, what the district council had an application from Brookwood Homes to amend their permission for a 20 residence project in battle, East Sussex, to, project in battle, East Sussex, to, of course, zero homes for social rent.
And that is just one example. You think of a place where obviously we desperately need the social housing. I I'll stop there because I housing. I I'll stop there because I want to get to a vote. If the government doesn't give way. government doesn't give way.
21:29
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
Up. much talk at the national level of the urgent need for building 1.5 million new homes, which are even promoted rather with rather empty Trump like slogans. Now mere numbers of new units will not provide a solution to many families and individuals in our country. What is urgently required is a national debate about the type of housing unit which is most needed, and how these will be provided, and the noble Lord burst has rightly focussed on one area of desperate need, which is of homes for social rent and.
But amendment 85 throws a beam of light, maybe even hope if the noble Baroness. The Minister responds, as I hope she will on those families and especially the children living in temporary accommodation. The numbers should shame us all. Over 170,000. Children in our country, one of the most wealthy in the world, are living in temporary accommodation, 170,050% of all. Experiencing homelessness are children. And this is a result could be of domestic violence, family breakdowns, debt or receiving a section 25 eviction notice.
And at least and at last, the government has outlawed section 21 evictions. The quality of housing provided for temporary accommodation is generally poor. The housing is often substandard, remote from support networks, and it can mean that children of school age either miss school altogether or have to move from school to school, or sometimes the journey to a new school. Daunting for most children, may be at. Least two bus journeys. Now. The accommodation often comes with limited equipment for cooking and washing facilities, and particularly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for families with very young children. Any facilities are very. Seriously lacking.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Seriously lacking. The consequence of that is the tragic and horrific statistic that tragic and horrific statistic that 74 children have died while living in temporary accommodation. Now, my book, that's a national scandal and book, that's a national scandal and my Lords, what I urgently request of the government is that within the 1.5 million homes to be built, there will also be a fixed target for providing housing for children and providing housing for children and their adult carers, which is safe, suitable and enables children to suitable and enables children to develop both socially and through attending school.
Now, amendment 85 does deliberately not provide solutions because I recognise that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
solutions because I recognise that this will require a multifaceted, faceted approach. But what. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. Do ask is that the government commits to including the desperate need of these children within the need of these children within the House building programme. I beg to move.
But amendment 85 throws a beam of light, maybe even hope if the noble Baroness. The Minister responds, as I hope she will on those families and especially the children living in temporary accommodation. The numbers should shame us all. Over 170,000. Children in our country, one of the most wealthy in the world, are living in temporary accommodation, 170,050% of all. Experiencing homelessness are children. And this is a result could be of domestic violence, family breakdowns, debt or receiving a section 25 eviction notice.
And at least and at last, the government has outlawed section 21 evictions. The quality of housing provided for temporary accommodation is generally poor. The housing is often substandard, remote from support networks, and it can mean that children of school age either miss school altogether or have to move from school to school, or sometimes the journey to a new school. Daunting for most children, may be at. Least two bus journeys. Now. The accommodation often comes with limited equipment for cooking and washing facilities, and particularly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for families with very young children. Any facilities are very. Seriously lacking.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Seriously lacking. The consequence of that is the tragic and horrific statistic that tragic and horrific statistic that 74 children have died while living in temporary accommodation. Now, my book, that's a national scandal and book, that's a national scandal and my Lords, what I urgently request of the government is that within the 1.5 million homes to be built, there will also be a fixed target for providing housing for children and providing housing for children and their adult carers, which is safe, suitable and enables children to suitable and enables children to develop both socially and through attending school.
Now, amendment 85 does deliberately not provide solutions because I recognise that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
solutions because I recognise that this will require a multifaceted, faceted approach. But what. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. Do ask is that the government commits to including the desperate need of these children within the need of these children within the House building programme. I beg to move.
21:32
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
my Lords, we support the intentions behind the amendments 72 and 85, and I'd like to thank noble Lords Best, Baroness Thornhill, Baroness Pinnock and others.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For bringing them forward. There is no doubt we need more affordable housing and we need more affordable housing and we need more social rent homes. We also recognise that planning permissions must be followed through, that too often affordable housing secured at the outset does not fully materialise. outset does not fully materialise. Amendments 22 puts forward a clear principle that if affordable housing is agreed to as part of a planning is agreed to as part of a planning consent, it must be delivered and that social rent form a meaningful that social rent form a meaningful part of that.
This is right, and we are entirely supportive of that aim. There are, of course, practical and legal complications around how these obligations are enforced, and we obligations are enforced, and we want to ensure that any new duty works effectively with an existing planning and viability frameworks. However, councils also need to have a degree of flexibility to meet a degree of flexibility to meet local needs, which is why I have a concern about putting a specific figure on the face of the bill.
As the noble Lord best is well aware, I am particularly interested in housing for older people and specialist accommodation for those with disabilities, but this is often with disabilities, but this is often more costly to build than standard housing. By taking a flexible approach at the local level on affordable percentage or mix specialist, but more expensive housing that meets local needs can be delivered. Imposing a national requirement may undermine that flexibility to deliver for local needs. It is how, as our I, as leader of Central Bedfordshire, was able to deliver specialist accommodation for older people, freeing up family homes as a consequence, and those with significant disabilities and short term accommodation.
I would not want the opportunity for this lost because of an imposed national target in legislation. That said, let's make this absolutely clear we are very strongly in support of the need for clarity and accountability of developers. They should and must deliver what they agree to when they get a planning permission. Amendment 85 rightly highlights the need of children and families facing homelessness or in temporary accommodation. A group of experiences are often invisible in planning policy, ensuring local planning authorities take account of these needs is a modest but important step, and we support it.
And I would that. I would also refer to my earlier comments on the need for flexibility. And again, I'm just going to make a reference to some of my own experience. When I became leader of Central Bedfordshire, one of the proudest things that I did was we had about 125 households in bread and breakfast. Ten years later, that was effectively zero. That was 125 households who had the opportunity to live in a proper home. Now, there were two key reasons for it.
One was we built specialist temporary accommodation and we converted some buildings for that. But the second one is we built homes that they could move into. So we also need to consider that we have to build the quantum of homes that is needed. If we're truly going to address the issue of homelessness. My Lords, both amendments speak to the same wider truth. Housing policy must be about delivery, not just ambition. We hope the government will take these proposals seriously and come back with measures that match the urgency of the housing crisis we face.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For bringing them forward. There is no doubt we need more affordable housing and we need more affordable housing and we need more social rent homes. We also recognise that planning permissions must be followed through, that too often affordable housing secured at the outset does not fully materialise. outset does not fully materialise. Amendments 22 puts forward a clear principle that if affordable housing is agreed to as part of a planning is agreed to as part of a planning consent, it must be delivered and that social rent form a meaningful that social rent form a meaningful part of that.
This is right, and we are entirely supportive of that aim. There are, of course, practical and legal complications around how these obligations are enforced, and we obligations are enforced, and we want to ensure that any new duty works effectively with an existing planning and viability frameworks. However, councils also need to have a degree of flexibility to meet a degree of flexibility to meet local needs, which is why I have a concern about putting a specific figure on the face of the bill.
As the noble Lord best is well aware, I am particularly interested in housing for older people and specialist accommodation for those with disabilities, but this is often with disabilities, but this is often more costly to build than standard housing. By taking a flexible approach at the local level on affordable percentage or mix specialist, but more expensive housing that meets local needs can be delivered. Imposing a national requirement may undermine that flexibility to deliver for local needs. It is how, as our I, as leader of Central Bedfordshire, was able to deliver specialist accommodation for older people, freeing up family homes as a consequence, and those with significant disabilities and short term accommodation.
I would not want the opportunity for this lost because of an imposed national target in legislation. That said, let's make this absolutely clear we are very strongly in support of the need for clarity and accountability of developers. They should and must deliver what they agree to when they get a planning permission. Amendment 85 rightly highlights the need of children and families facing homelessness or in temporary accommodation. A group of experiences are often invisible in planning policy, ensuring local planning authorities take account of these needs is a modest but important step, and we support it.
And I would that. I would also refer to my earlier comments on the need for flexibility. And again, I'm just going to make a reference to some of my own experience. When I became leader of Central Bedfordshire, one of the proudest things that I did was we had about 125 households in bread and breakfast. Ten years later, that was effectively zero. That was 125 households who had the opportunity to live in a proper home. Now, there were two key reasons for it.
One was we built specialist temporary accommodation and we converted some buildings for that. But the second one is we built homes that they could move into. So we also need to consider that we have to build the quantum of homes that is needed. If we're truly going to address the issue of homelessness. My Lords, both amendments speak to the same wider truth. Housing policy must be about delivery, not just ambition. We hope the government will take these proposals seriously and come back with measures that match the urgency of the housing crisis we face.
21:36
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)
I thank the noble Lord best for amendment 72. I have to say the last words of the noble Lord Jamieson. When we're trying to sort out a housing crisis that his party created. A bit rich. But anyway, I'll leave that. I'll park that for the moment, as noble Lords will know, the government. Is committed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to delivering. I'm pleased. That. The last government delivered a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The last government delivered a million homes over the last five years. I would. Be delighted. If this government delivers 1.5
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If this government delivers 1.5 million, but at the moment it's on track to deliver considerably less, increasing that crisis.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. You left 130,000 children in temporary accommodation. As noble temporary accommodation. As noble Lords will know, the government is committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent. But we just homes for social rent. But we just take a different view to the noble Lord on how to achieve this. The revised NPPF provides local revised NPPF provides local authorities with greater flexibility to deliver the right ten year mix to suit local housing needs, and suit local housing needs, and planning practice guidance that supports the NPPF sets out that plan makers should collaborate with the makers should collaborate with the local community, with developers and other stakeholders to create realistic, deliverable policies.
I realistic, deliverable policies. I do understand the frustrations around the issue about viability, so the government's also. Reviewing the government's also. Reviewing the. Planning practice guidance on viability to ensure the system works to optimise developer contributions and that negotiation or renegotiation of section 106 agreements only takes place when genuinely necessary. Once planning obligations are entered into under section 106, they run with the land and are legally binding on all parties to the agreement, and so can be enforced by the local planning authority.
As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. My Lords turning to them in 85 brought by the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock. While we agree that we need to tackle homelessness, especially where children and families are involved, I will explain why we can't support this particular approach. The planning system is already complex and adding duties to have regard to particular matters, no matter how law de pol are not required in statute.
Given that national planning policy is a strong material consideration in planning decisions. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. Councils must, by law, make sure that any temporary accommodation placements are suitable to the needs of people placed there. And on World Homelessness Day this month, we announced £10.9 million to increase access to support and services for families in temporary accommodation. I would therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I Lords am deeply grateful to noble Lords for their support for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to delivering. I'm pleased. That. The last government delivered a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The last government delivered a million homes over the last five years. I would. Be delighted. If this government delivers 1.5
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If this government delivers 1.5 million, but at the moment it's on track to deliver considerably less, increasing that crisis.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. You left 130,000 children in temporary accommodation. As noble temporary accommodation. As noble Lords will know, the government is committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable increase in social and affordable housing in a generation and to prioritising the building of new homes for social rent. But we just homes for social rent. But we just take a different view to the noble Lord on how to achieve this. The revised NPPF provides local revised NPPF provides local authorities with greater flexibility to deliver the right ten year mix to suit local housing needs, and suit local housing needs, and planning practice guidance that supports the NPPF sets out that plan makers should collaborate with the makers should collaborate with the local community, with developers and other stakeholders to create realistic, deliverable policies.
I realistic, deliverable policies. I do understand the frustrations around the issue about viability, so the government's also. Reviewing the government's also. Reviewing the. Planning practice guidance on viability to ensure the system works to optimise developer contributions and that negotiation or renegotiation of section 106 agreements only takes place when genuinely necessary. Once planning obligations are entered into under section 106, they run with the land and are legally binding on all parties to the agreement, and so can be enforced by the local planning authority.
As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. My Lords turning to them in 85 brought by the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock. While we agree that we need to tackle homelessness, especially where children and families are involved, I will explain why we can't support this particular approach. The planning system is already complex and adding duties to have regard to particular matters, no matter how law de pol are not required in statute.
Given that national planning policy is a strong material consideration in planning decisions. As we take forward work on a set of national policies for decision making, we will also consider further steps to support social and affordable housing. Councils must, by law, make sure that any temporary accommodation placements are suitable to the needs of people placed there. And on World Homelessness Day this month, we announced £10.9 million to increase access to support and services for families in temporary accommodation. I would therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I Lords am deeply grateful to noble Lords for their support for
21:39
Lord Best (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Best (Crossbench)
noble Lords for their support for this amendment. 72 Lord Carlyle's eloquent words Baroness Grender, Baroness Kinnock, Baroness Bennett sincere thanks for their their support. The noble Lord Lord Jameson, unfortunately, is unable to be supportive of this amendment, which, without his help and that of his colleagues, I fear it would not achieve the majority of the needs. I don't accept his point that having a 20% baseline below which we would not go in terms of the affordable housing, social rented housing in particular, I don't believe that this is a necessary as a blockage to flexibility.
The baseline of 20% at social rents, which is the typical housing association in council rents, wouldn't put a great burden on the planning authorities. On the housebuilders negotiating with the planning authority, who that also wanted to produce housing for older people. I don't think it would add an additional burden. Sometimes the older people's housing of the kind that he is produced in his own borough, and I strongly congratulate him as council leader in achieving a disproportionate amount of housing for older people.
It's done a great job, but sometimes that social will be social housing and would count toward the affordable housing quota that I'm talking about. Sometimes it would be housing for outright sale, which wouldn't be part of this equation. So we wouldn't we wouldn't worry about it. It's not going to, I think, impede having a baseline of 20%, an absolute minimum of a social housing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I may just be clear, I do apologise, but I did mean affordable housing that was for older people. I housing that was for older people. I did not mean for private sale when I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
talked about flexibility policy. Yeah. Well, I'm sorry that we differ on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I'm sorry that we differ on this because it means that it would be pointless me taking this to a vote. What I, what I would say is vote. What I, what I would say is that I'm deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for explaining that the issue of explaining that the issue of viability advice is now under consideration, and we will be getting new advice, which I hope getting new advice, which I hope will be much stronger and more positive than than in the past.
So I'm grateful to her and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure of this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn.
The baseline of 20% at social rents, which is the typical housing association in council rents, wouldn't put a great burden on the planning authorities. On the housebuilders negotiating with the planning authority, who that also wanted to produce housing for older people. I don't think it would add an additional burden. Sometimes the older people's housing of the kind that he is produced in his own borough, and I strongly congratulate him as council leader in achieving a disproportionate amount of housing for older people.
It's done a great job, but sometimes that social will be social housing and would count toward the affordable housing quota that I'm talking about. Sometimes it would be housing for outright sale, which wouldn't be part of this equation. So we wouldn't we wouldn't worry about it. It's not going to, I think, impede having a baseline of 20%, an absolute minimum of a social housing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I may just be clear, I do apologise, but I did mean affordable housing that was for older people. I housing that was for older people. I did not mean for private sale when I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
talked about flexibility policy. Yeah. Well, I'm sorry that we differ on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I'm sorry that we differ on this because it means that it would be pointless me taking this to a vote. What I, what I would say is vote. What I, what I would say is that I'm deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for explaining that the issue of explaining that the issue of viability advice is now under consideration, and we will be getting new advice, which I hope getting new advice, which I hope will be much stronger and more positive than than in the past.
So I'm grateful to her and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure of this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn.
21:42
AMDT 73
-
AMDT 73
Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Become now to amendment 73. Baroness Scott of Bybrook.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And my Lords, I rise. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And my Lords, I rise. To.
21:42
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. Speak to amendment 73, 74, 75, 263 and 264 tabled in my name and 263 and 264 tabled in my name and that of my Noble friend Lord Jamieson, also to 87. E tabled by Baroness Pinnock. These amendments, my Lords, are about fairness, transparency and democratic consent in how planning decisions are made, particularly when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation. Too often, my Lords, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored.
Asylum hotels have dominated the news this summer, sparking protests and dividing communities divisions that could have been avoided if people had just been given a voice. The principle is straightforward changing the use of a hotel or a House of multiple occupation and HMO to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use. Under planning law. That would be mean that planning permission is required. Ensuring proper consultation and clarity for both councils, residents and local businesses.
At present, the law is uncertain and councils are left to fight retrospective battles in the courts. This isn't about the approach of the current or previous government, it is about what is right for the British people. My laws protecting local voices has been a priority and an issue we have fought for consistently throughout this bill. It is a terrible shame that when the same principles in. Rises in relation to asylum, an issue that is dominating our our local communities, people like the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to support our plan to give local people a voice on this issue.
We had hoped that all noble lords would have been consistent with their commitment to protecting the voices of local people. These amendments are not a question on asylum policy. communities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A voice. The country is watching, my Lords, and it is vital that we act.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I beg to move. Amendment proposed. After. Clause 51. Insert the following.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Insert the following. New clause as printed on the Marshall List.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. Speak to amendment 73, 74, 75, 263 and 264 tabled in my name and 263 and 264 tabled in my name and that of my Noble friend Lord Jamieson, also to 87. E tabled by Baroness Pinnock. These amendments, my Lords, are about fairness, transparency and democratic consent in how planning decisions are made, particularly when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation. Too often, my Lords, decisions to convert hotels into asylum accommodation have been imposed on towns and cities without consultation, leaving residents feeling powerless and ignored.
Asylum hotels have dominated the news this summer, sparking protests and dividing communities divisions that could have been avoided if people had just been given a voice. The principle is straightforward changing the use of a hotel or a House of multiple occupation and HMO to accommodate asylum seekers should be recognised as a material change of use. Under planning law. That would be mean that planning permission is required. Ensuring proper consultation and clarity for both councils, residents and local businesses.
At present, the law is uncertain and councils are left to fight retrospective battles in the courts. This isn't about the approach of the current or previous government, it is about what is right for the British people. My laws protecting local voices has been a priority and an issue we have fought for consistently throughout this bill. It is a terrible shame that when the same principles in. Rises in relation to asylum, an issue that is dominating our our local communities, people like the Liberal Democrats have chosen not to support our plan to give local people a voice on this issue.
We had hoped that all noble lords would have been consistent with their commitment to protecting the voices of local people. These amendments are not a question on asylum policy. communities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A voice. The country is watching, my Lords, and it is vital that we act.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I beg to move. Amendment proposed. After. Clause 51. Insert the following.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Insert the following. New clause as printed on the Marshall List.
21:45
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Marshall List. Malones. This is an important
**** Possible New Speaker ****
group of amendments, given that its focus is on the planning issues surrounding the use of. Hotels.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hotels. For asylum seekers, pending their assessment of their application. assessment of their application. Amendment 87 E in My Name offers a different solution to those challenging issues on these benches. We recognise the importance of reducing the backlog of asylum applications, and we are committed to constructively ending the use of hotels to House asylum seekers. I note that the government has also committed to doing so by the end of this Parliament. The real solution lies in substantially expanding processing capacity to meet the scale of the challenge we face.
The amendment in my name seeks to achieve this by streamlining the asylum application process through the establishment of what we are calling Nightingale Processing Centres. Temporary but purpose built facilities designed to increase capacity, improve efficiency and ensure applications are handled swiftly and fairly. These centres would allow for better use of resources, reduce. Administrative bottlenecks and relieve the pressure currently placed on overstretched local authorities and accommodation providers. Importantly, the amendment also provides that such units would be subject to an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expedited planning. Process developed in consultation with. And in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And in. Line with the wishes of elected local government. Officials. Ensuring both accountability and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ensuring both accountability and local cooperation. My Lord, this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
local cooperation. My Lord, this amendment offers a practical, humane and forward looking solution. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. A system that is struggling under its own weight. It is. The solution on offer from the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The solution on offer from the noble Baroness Scott of Bybrook in the other. Amendments in this group is very different, as it is not a practical solution to the high cost practical solution to the high cost of using hotels to House asylum seekers. The question is. How did
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seekers. The question is. How did use. Of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. Hotels for asylum. Seekers began
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hotels for asylum. Seekers began in 2020 under the noble Baroness Scots government, and has steadily Scots government, and has steadily increased from 1200 in March 2020 to increased from 1200 in March 2020 to over 100,000 by June 2024, at a cost each year of around £3 billion. Now, I hope the noble Baroness Scott isn't going to dispute those figures because I got them from the House of Lords library. The next question is how is it that the conservatives have only just realised that a change of use.
Planning application may be needed? Why has it taken five years for that to apparently be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
realised? So my starting point. For.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For. These amendments is have the conservatives finally accepted conservatives finally accepted responsibility for the fact that asylum seekers are being housed in asylum seekers are being housed in hotels at huge cost to the taxpayer?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is only when we hear a full apology from the noble Baroness Scott on behalf. Of her.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of her. Party and acceptance of responsibility for dealing with this responsibility for dealing with this challenge, then and only then, will challenge, then and only then, will we take her proposals seriously. Of course, the amendment tabled by the course, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness Scott could provide clarification on how the use of clarification on how the use of hotels relates to planning law, but they do not propose ending their use.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
use. Altogether. And I am surprised that the conservatives have brought these amendments forward, given that it was their government that created was their government that created the very situation we are now trying to resolve. And the final question for the noble Baroness, Scott, and I apologise that this is four in a row, is, is this if, as it seems likely under these proposals, that hotels are not given a change of use permission, then where will asylum seekers be housed? The real possibility is that they will be in competition with other very vulnerable groups.
As we discussed in the last group of amendments. And then many will find that their situation has further deteriorated. The noble Baroness, Scott's and her group have provided no solution. Meanwhile, I beg to move 8070, which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
does provide a workable way forward. There's a danger. That this subject tends to generate more heat than light, and I
Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Marshall List. Malones. This is an important
**** Possible New Speaker ****
group of amendments, given that its focus is on the planning issues surrounding the use of. Hotels.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hotels. For asylum seekers, pending their assessment of their application. assessment of their application. Amendment 87 E in My Name offers a different solution to those challenging issues on these benches. We recognise the importance of reducing the backlog of asylum applications, and we are committed to constructively ending the use of hotels to House asylum seekers. I note that the government has also committed to doing so by the end of this Parliament. The real solution lies in substantially expanding processing capacity to meet the scale of the challenge we face.
The amendment in my name seeks to achieve this by streamlining the asylum application process through the establishment of what we are calling Nightingale Processing Centres. Temporary but purpose built facilities designed to increase capacity, improve efficiency and ensure applications are handled swiftly and fairly. These centres would allow for better use of resources, reduce. Administrative bottlenecks and relieve the pressure currently placed on overstretched local authorities and accommodation providers. Importantly, the amendment also provides that such units would be subject to an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expedited planning. Process developed in consultation with. And in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And in. Line with the wishes of elected local government. Officials. Ensuring both accountability and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Ensuring both accountability and local cooperation. My Lord, this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
local cooperation. My Lord, this amendment offers a practical, humane and forward looking solution. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. A system that is struggling under its own weight. It is. The solution on offer from the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The solution on offer from the noble Baroness Scott of Bybrook in the other. Amendments in this group is very different, as it is not a practical solution to the high cost practical solution to the high cost of using hotels to House asylum seekers. The question is. How did
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seekers. The question is. How did use. Of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. Hotels for asylum. Seekers began
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hotels for asylum. Seekers began in 2020 under the noble Baroness Scots government, and has steadily Scots government, and has steadily increased from 1200 in March 2020 to increased from 1200 in March 2020 to over 100,000 by June 2024, at a cost each year of around £3 billion. Now, I hope the noble Baroness Scott isn't going to dispute those figures because I got them from the House of Lords library. The next question is how is it that the conservatives have only just realised that a change of use.
Planning application may be needed? Why has it taken five years for that to apparently be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
realised? So my starting point. For.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For. These amendments is have the conservatives finally accepted conservatives finally accepted responsibility for the fact that asylum seekers are being housed in asylum seekers are being housed in hotels at huge cost to the taxpayer?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is only when we hear a full apology from the noble Baroness Scott on behalf. Of her.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of her. Party and acceptance of responsibility for dealing with this responsibility for dealing with this challenge, then and only then, will challenge, then and only then, will we take her proposals seriously. Of course, the amendment tabled by the course, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness Scott could provide clarification on how the use of clarification on how the use of hotels relates to planning law, but they do not propose ending their use.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
use. Altogether. And I am surprised that the conservatives have brought these amendments forward, given that it was their government that created was their government that created the very situation we are now trying to resolve. And the final question for the noble Baroness, Scott, and I apologise that this is four in a row, is, is this if, as it seems likely under these proposals, that hotels are not given a change of use permission, then where will asylum seekers be housed? The real possibility is that they will be in competition with other very vulnerable groups.
As we discussed in the last group of amendments. And then many will find that their situation has further deteriorated. The noble Baroness, Scott's and her group have provided no solution. Meanwhile, I beg to move 8070, which
**** Possible New Speaker ****
does provide a workable way forward. There's a danger. That this subject tends to generate more heat than light, and I
21:51
Lord Banner (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Banner (Conservative)
generate more heat than light, and I think we've heard that just now. So I thought I would, from the perspective of planning silk, explain what these amendments would do and what they wouldn't do, so that we were all clear about that. These amendments are not about the principle of asylum hotels. These amendments are not about the principle of small boats. What they are about is providing clarity and certainty to the planning regime, which needs clarity and certainty in order to operate effectively.
Currently, the position in law under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act is a change of use of premises only requires planning permission if that change of use is material and there is case law, most
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recently in judgement. But other judgements over the last few. Years. Including cases in Great Yarmouth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Including cases in Great Yarmouth that to the effect of which whether a change of use is material is. An. Evaluative judgement on the facts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Evaluative judgement on the facts of the. Case. And in the context of asylum hotels, that can be a very asylum hotels, that can be a very difficult and unpredictable evaluative judgement, made even more difficult by the mission creep that difficult by the mission creep that some of these hotels have when they start off with families, and then the nature of the use can change, the nature of the use can change, and that uncertainty is disadvantageous to all participants in the planning system.
It's disadvantageous to the commercial hotel or road operators because they hotel or road operators because they are being asked to invest money in a profit out of the hotels for asylum seekers, without knowing whether seekers, without knowing whether that investment may come back to bite them. If later it turns out they needed planning permission and didn't have it and are enforced
**** Possible New Speaker ****
didn't have it and are enforced against it, creates uncertainty for whether. Or.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Or. Not particular operations in their neighbourhood require planning permission, and the something to which they should be given a right to participate in the decision making law. And fundamentally, it creates uncertainty for local creates uncertainty for local planning authorities because they have to choose the horns of the Lady Moyo. Do they turn a blind eye and let a potential breach of planning control continue, or do they bring enforcement procedures which, if brought in court, can cost hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of pounds. To bring? Putting them and the local. Taxpayer at risk.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taxpayer at risk. Of significant adverse cost. And you won't know. Very, very hard to you won't know. Very, very hard to tell in advance what the prospects of success in such proceedings will be, given the very delicate, nuanced nature of the decision. The evaluative judgement is a particular evaluative judgement is a particular change of use, material or not. So fundamentally, the clue is in the net. Planning is meant to be net. Planning is meant to be predictable in all forms and all all manifestations of the regime.
If manifestations of the regime. If it's if you can't plan, then the system doesn't work. So what this system doesn't work. So what this amendment would do very making very straightforward would be able to provide a clear line in the sand. provide a clear line in the sand. There's any change of use. To an asylum, hotel or asylum. HMO would be a material change, would be be a material change, would be deemed a material change of use, and every protagonist in the planning system would then know where they system would then know where they stand.
That this does need planning permission. It does not constrain the decision whether or not to grant planning permission. It does not in any way affect the merits or the prospects of an application for prospects of an application for planning permission. All it does is that everybody know where they stand. So I really do urge the House, particularly the Liberal Democrats, let's focus on the real issue that these amendments puts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
into play and cut the rhetoric. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. my Lords, I want to comment briefly. My Lords, I. Want to. Comment briefly on. These amendments. The government
Currently, the position in law under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act is a change of use of premises only requires planning permission if that change of use is material and there is case law, most
**** Possible New Speaker ****
recently in judgement. But other judgements over the last few. Years. Including cases in Great Yarmouth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Including cases in Great Yarmouth that to the effect of which whether a change of use is material is. An. Evaluative judgement on the facts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Evaluative judgement on the facts of the. Case. And in the context of asylum hotels, that can be a very asylum hotels, that can be a very difficult and unpredictable evaluative judgement, made even more difficult by the mission creep that difficult by the mission creep that some of these hotels have when they start off with families, and then the nature of the use can change, the nature of the use can change, and that uncertainty is disadvantageous to all participants in the planning system.
It's disadvantageous to the commercial hotel or road operators because they hotel or road operators because they are being asked to invest money in a profit out of the hotels for asylum seekers, without knowing whether seekers, without knowing whether that investment may come back to bite them. If later it turns out they needed planning permission and didn't have it and are enforced
**** Possible New Speaker ****
didn't have it and are enforced against it, creates uncertainty for whether. Or.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Or. Not particular operations in their neighbourhood require planning permission, and the something to which they should be given a right to participate in the decision making law. And fundamentally, it creates uncertainty for local creates uncertainty for local planning authorities because they have to choose the horns of the Lady Moyo. Do they turn a blind eye and let a potential breach of planning control continue, or do they bring enforcement procedures which, if brought in court, can cost hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of pounds. To bring? Putting them and the local. Taxpayer at risk.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taxpayer at risk. Of significant adverse cost. And you won't know. Very, very hard to you won't know. Very, very hard to tell in advance what the prospects of success in such proceedings will be, given the very delicate, nuanced nature of the decision. The evaluative judgement is a particular evaluative judgement is a particular change of use, material or not. So fundamentally, the clue is in the net. Planning is meant to be net. Planning is meant to be predictable in all forms and all all manifestations of the regime.
If manifestations of the regime. If it's if you can't plan, then the system doesn't work. So what this system doesn't work. So what this amendment would do very making very straightforward would be able to provide a clear line in the sand. provide a clear line in the sand. There's any change of use. To an asylum, hotel or asylum. HMO would be a material change, would be be a material change, would be deemed a material change of use, and every protagonist in the planning system would then know where they system would then know where they stand.
That this does need planning permission. It does not constrain the decision whether or not to grant planning permission. It does not in any way affect the merits or the prospects of an application for prospects of an application for planning permission. All it does is that everybody know where they stand. So I really do urge the House, particularly the Liberal Democrats, let's focus on the real issue that these amendments puts
**** Possible New Speaker ****
into play and cut the rhetoric. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. my Lords, I want to comment briefly. My Lords, I. Want to. Comment briefly on. These amendments. The government
21:54
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
These amendments. The government may say if you stop these conversions off the tables, where will we put them? The noble Lady, the Baroness ask the same question. the Baroness ask the same question. Well, that's a fair question, my Lords. And the answer is to use all spare military accommodation reasonably used by servicemen and women. From what I read, the government wants to do that and they must have the guts to stick to it because the public, they will have public support, even though left wing immigration lawyers will announce judicial reviews against it.
So Her Majesty's Government don't be terrified into closing RAF Wethersfield, but increase the numbers there to the maximum possible and reopen Napier Barracks again. I stayed there 50 years ago and it's 100 times better now than it was then. I can tell you many noble Lords will will have periods of military accommodation in the past, including officer accommodation, and it was not up to the standards now available for illegal migrants. I think it was deplorable that some lawyers and immigration groups took action to close Napier, which was used only for single men.
How did these single men get here? They walked hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles through Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, Romania, Romania, other European countries living in appalling conditions near the beach at Calais before crowding into a little boat. Others would come from Eritrea, Somalia and up to Egypt, Libya, Italy. And article I am sure they had premium accommodation or route my Lords. How dare anyone suggest that the accommodation for them in any of our former military bases is not good enough for single men of fighting age, when it was good enough for British men and women of fighting age.
I tell you, my Lords, if the disdain Barry Budden stuck out on the coast of the Fife next to Kirsty, where 30 of us were in a mission hut with one big custard pot stove, then they might have something to complain about, but not the current accommodation. So Her Majesty's Government, please do not back down. On the use of former military accommodation or any other spare government accommodation, and that can take the pressure of unsuitable hotels on amendment 82. F I do not trust any government to use this power anywhere in the country, and put up temporary accommodation all around the land, but if some of the military bases are not big enough, or are regarded as not having quality accommodation, then move in temporary accommodation, caravan chalets, portable homes, porta cabins and put them in these bases or other military land.
I would suggest that is a better solution and I believe some are answers. Some of the questions. If you close these hotels, where will you put them? I suggested in my comments tonight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. my Lords, firstly I turn to
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
These amendments. The government may say if you stop these conversions off the tables, where will we put them? The noble Lady, the Baroness ask the same question. the Baroness ask the same question. Well, that's a fair question, my Lords. And the answer is to use all spare military accommodation reasonably used by servicemen and women. From what I read, the government wants to do that and they must have the guts to stick to it because the public, they will have public support, even though left wing immigration lawyers will announce judicial reviews against it.
So Her Majesty's Government don't be terrified into closing RAF Wethersfield, but increase the numbers there to the maximum possible and reopen Napier Barracks again. I stayed there 50 years ago and it's 100 times better now than it was then. I can tell you many noble Lords will will have periods of military accommodation in the past, including officer accommodation, and it was not up to the standards now available for illegal migrants. I think it was deplorable that some lawyers and immigration groups took action to close Napier, which was used only for single men.
How did these single men get here? They walked hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles through Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Greece, Romania, Romania, other European countries living in appalling conditions near the beach at Calais before crowding into a little boat. Others would come from Eritrea, Somalia and up to Egypt, Libya, Italy. And article I am sure they had premium accommodation or route my Lords. How dare anyone suggest that the accommodation for them in any of our former military bases is not good enough for single men of fighting age, when it was good enough for British men and women of fighting age.
I tell you, my Lords, if the disdain Barry Budden stuck out on the coast of the Fife next to Kirsty, where 30 of us were in a mission hut with one big custard pot stove, then they might have something to complain about, but not the current accommodation. So Her Majesty's Government, please do not back down. On the use of former military accommodation or any other spare government accommodation, and that can take the pressure of unsuitable hotels on amendment 82. F I do not trust any government to use this power anywhere in the country, and put up temporary accommodation all around the land, but if some of the military bases are not big enough, or are regarded as not having quality accommodation, then move in temporary accommodation, caravan chalets, portable homes, porta cabins and put them in these bases or other military land.
I would suggest that is a better solution and I believe some are answers. Some of the questions. If you close these hotels, where will you put them? I suggested in my comments tonight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah, yeah. my Lords, firstly I turn to
21:57
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, firstly I turn to amendments 73, 7475, 263 and 264 brought by the noble Baroness Lady brought by the noble Baroness Lady Scott. I thank the noble Baroness for once again raising an important issue. I would point out that it does, of course, relate to ongoing legal proceedings, which I'm sure she appreciates. I cannot comment on those proceedings. The asylum accommodation system is under significant pressure, while the priority is to end the use of asylum hotels as soon as possible, the government does need to be able to control the number of such hotels and retain the ability to open new asylum hotels.
Only if and when it is necessary to manage fluctuations in demand. The amendments would remove that ability to do so. The Home Office is under a legal obligation to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers, while their application for asylum is being considered. We know this has led to concerns amongst some people about the use of hotels for this purpose. We are conscious that the use of hotels for the purpose of housing asylum seekers has cause understandable concern, and that's why we have an ambition to resolve it in a controlled and orderly way.
And listening to the noble Lady Baroness Scott, I was astonished to hear her words about giving local people a voice. Frankly, under her government, as a council leader, I pressed over and again for our hotels in Stevenage not to be used for this purpose by the agents of the Home Office, not least because the international businesses in my town needed them. Her government didn't listen to our community. They didn't listen to its elected representatives or our businesses. They overruled us. And when ploughed ahead, regardless, this government has made it our intention to stop the use of hotels to House asylum seekers.
Clear. This is borne out by the fact that the number of hotels so use has almost halved since its peak under the previous government. More broadly, the Home Office is working on a future strategy for asylum accommodation. The department's working in collaboration with local authorities to develop several potential accommodation models that could test a more sustainable, flexible and collaborative outcome. The department is also working at pace to deliver a range of alternative sites, including to the noble Lord Blend caterers point military sites that would contribute to a more flexible estate, restricting the use of houses and multiple occupation for asylum accommodation would have the perverse effect of making it even more difficult to end the use of asylum hotels.
While we understand why the amendments have been brought forward, I won't comment on why, but we understand
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it. It would nevertheless result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation and prevent us from proceeding. In the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the. Controlled and orderly way that we want to. Turning to amendment 87 we want to. Turning to amendment 87 brought by the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock, which would give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to deal with regulations to deal with applications for planning permission where temporary asylum application processing facilities are proposed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
processing facilities are proposed. The amendment. Is unnecessary as these powers would be duplicative of existing powers within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, namely, section 59 allows the Secretary of State to 59 allows the Secretary of State to make a development order, which can either A itself, grant planning permission, or be made for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
grant. Of planning. Permission by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This includes timescales, publicity and consultation. Section 70 allows. Planning. Authorities to grant planning permission.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planning permission. For development, including conditional planning permission. And section 77.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Makes provision in relation to the Secretary of State being able to call in applications for planning permission to determine them permission to determine them himself. In addition, it would also not be appropriate to take such powers for a specific type of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
powers for a specific type of development into primary legislation. We are committed. To progressing asylum cases in an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
efficient and cost effective way. The Home Office's programme of improvement. Is speeding.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is speeding. Up decision making, reducing. The. Time people. Spend in the system and reducing the. Numbers who are awaiting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the. Numbers who are awaiting. An interview. Or decision and. Remain in hotels. So once.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So once. Again, I would like to reassure. The noble Baroness. Scotland, the noble Baroness. We continue. To seek to address the concerns
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To seek to address the concerns about the use of hotels to House asylum seekers, and we're taking action to progress asylum cases in action to progress asylum cases in an efficient and cost effective way. But I'm afraid we cannot support these amendments and I hope the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
these amendments and I hope the noble Baronesses will withdraw them. my Lords, if I may.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, firstly I turn to amendments 73, 7475, 263 and 264 brought by the noble Baroness Lady brought by the noble Baroness Lady Scott. I thank the noble Baroness for once again raising an important issue. I would point out that it does, of course, relate to ongoing legal proceedings, which I'm sure she appreciates. I cannot comment on those proceedings. The asylum accommodation system is under significant pressure, while the priority is to end the use of asylum hotels as soon as possible, the government does need to be able to control the number of such hotels and retain the ability to open new asylum hotels.
Only if and when it is necessary to manage fluctuations in demand. The amendments would remove that ability to do so. The Home Office is under a legal obligation to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers, while their application for asylum is being considered. We know this has led to concerns amongst some people about the use of hotels for this purpose. We are conscious that the use of hotels for the purpose of housing asylum seekers has cause understandable concern, and that's why we have an ambition to resolve it in a controlled and orderly way.
And listening to the noble Lady Baroness Scott, I was astonished to hear her words about giving local people a voice. Frankly, under her government, as a council leader, I pressed over and again for our hotels in Stevenage not to be used for this purpose by the agents of the Home Office, not least because the international businesses in my town needed them. Her government didn't listen to our community. They didn't listen to its elected representatives or our businesses. They overruled us. And when ploughed ahead, regardless, this government has made it our intention to stop the use of hotels to House asylum seekers.
Clear. This is borne out by the fact that the number of hotels so use has almost halved since its peak under the previous government. More broadly, the Home Office is working on a future strategy for asylum accommodation. The department's working in collaboration with local authorities to develop several potential accommodation models that could test a more sustainable, flexible and collaborative outcome. The department is also working at pace to deliver a range of alternative sites, including to the noble Lord Blend caterers point military sites that would contribute to a more flexible estate, restricting the use of houses and multiple occupation for asylum accommodation would have the perverse effect of making it even more difficult to end the use of asylum hotels.
While we understand why the amendments have been brought forward, I won't comment on why, but we understand
**** Possible New Speaker ****
it. It would nevertheless result in greater instability in the provision of asylum accommodation and prevent us from proceeding. In the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the. Controlled and orderly way that we want to. Turning to amendment 87 we want to. Turning to amendment 87 brought by the noble Baroness Lady Pinnock, which would give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to deal with regulations to deal with applications for planning permission where temporary asylum application processing facilities are proposed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
processing facilities are proposed. The amendment. Is unnecessary as these powers would be duplicative of existing powers within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, namely, section 59 allows the Secretary of State to 59 allows the Secretary of State to make a development order, which can either A itself, grant planning permission, or be made for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
grant. Of planning. Permission by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This includes timescales, publicity and consultation. Section 70 allows. Planning. Authorities to grant planning permission.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planning permission. For development, including conditional planning permission. And section 77.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Makes provision in relation to the Secretary of State being able to call in applications for planning permission to determine them permission to determine them himself. In addition, it would also not be appropriate to take such powers for a specific type of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
powers for a specific type of development into primary legislation. We are committed. To progressing asylum cases in an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
efficient and cost effective way. The Home Office's programme of improvement. Is speeding.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is speeding. Up decision making, reducing. The. Time people. Spend in the system and reducing the. Numbers who are awaiting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the. Numbers who are awaiting. An interview. Or decision and. Remain in hotels. So once.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So once. Again, I would like to reassure. The noble Baroness. Scotland, the noble Baroness. We continue. To seek to address the concerns
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To seek to address the concerns about the use of hotels to House asylum seekers, and we're taking action to progress asylum cases in action to progress asylum cases in an efficient and cost effective way. But I'm afraid we cannot support these amendments and I hope the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
these amendments and I hope the noble Baronesses will withdraw them. my Lords, if I may.
22:02
Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I speak as leader of the opposition. And I do not wish to interfere with this debate, and I have no
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with this debate, and I have no to. The. House, if it has been suggested. That that. Might happen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Might happen. And we will proceed to the end. Of the debate in my Noble friend will respond. My Lords, I draw the will respond. My Lords, I draw the attention of the House, that it's now past 10:00, the normal hour, according to the companion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When the House rises. We had a discussion last Tuesday
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We had a discussion last Tuesday on my initiative about the. Sitting times of. The House. We were told it would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We were told it would. Be the advantage of the House to meet at 11:00 in the mornings. This was not. Something that was agreed by. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Opposition parties, or indeed by the convenor of. The Cross-bench peers. We do not see. Here we are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here we are. We find. Ourselves at 10:00. In. The evening, having sat.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the morning for three hours, still with many groups to consider. This is not, with all the due
**** Possible New Speaker ****
respect, the captain of. The Gentleman at arms. It is not the proper way to conduct the business of this House. We have had ministers here since 11:00 in the morning on duty. We 11:00 in the morning on duty. We have had members of this. The staff.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here for 11 hours. On duty. If we do, and if the House. Chooses, as it chose.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chooses, as it chose. Last Tuesday. To meet at. 11, then, my Lords. We must end
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at the time. When the companion says that we should end. There is a better way of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should end. There is a better way of proceeding which has to be done by agreement in. The usual channels. And so when we the my noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
friend. Response. No doubt we will move to a division in the proper way of your
**** Possible New Speaker ****
division in the proper way of your Lordships' House. But I have to say, I expect, and I think many members. Of your Lordships House. Would expect.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would expect. The captain of the Gentleman. Of Arms to come to the despatch. Box after.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Box after. The division and explain quite how long he expects the House to how long he expects the House to continue this evening. And I think, my Lords within it would be to the my Lords within it would be to the improvement of all of us if we could return to our normal ways of doing return to our normal ways of doing things. So I give him notice of that. Let us proceed with the debate. Let us conclude the debate. debate.
Let us conclude the debate. Let us have our division, and then please let us then outside this chamber, if need be, reach an agreement on drawing stamps at the appropriate time. Ministers have done enough. My colleagues have done enough. The House has done enough. The staff have done enough.
Lord True (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I speak as leader of the opposition. And I do not wish to interfere with this debate, and I have no
**** Possible New Speaker ****
with this debate, and I have no to. The. House, if it has been suggested. That that. Might happen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Might happen. And we will proceed to the end. Of the debate in my Noble friend will respond. My Lords, I draw the will respond. My Lords, I draw the attention of the House, that it's now past 10:00, the normal hour, according to the companion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
When the House rises. We had a discussion last Tuesday
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We had a discussion last Tuesday on my initiative about the. Sitting times of. The House. We were told it would.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We were told it would. Be the advantage of the House to meet at 11:00 in the mornings. This was not. Something that was agreed by. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Opposition parties, or indeed by the convenor of. The Cross-bench peers. We do not see. Here we are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here we are. We find. Ourselves at 10:00. In. The evening, having sat.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the morning for three hours, still with many groups to consider. This is not, with all the due
**** Possible New Speaker ****
respect, the captain of. The Gentleman at arms. It is not the proper way to conduct the business of this House. We have had ministers here since 11:00 in the morning on duty. We 11:00 in the morning on duty. We have had members of this. The staff.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here for 11 hours. On duty. If we do, and if the House. Chooses, as it chose.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Chooses, as it chose. Last Tuesday. To meet at. 11, then, my Lords. We must end
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at the time. When the companion says that we should end. There is a better way of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should end. There is a better way of proceeding which has to be done by agreement in. The usual channels. And so when we the my noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
friend. Response. No doubt we will move to a division in the proper way of your
**** Possible New Speaker ****
division in the proper way of your Lordships' House. But I have to say, I expect, and I think many members. Of your Lordships House. Would expect.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would expect. The captain of the Gentleman. Of Arms to come to the despatch. Box after.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Box after. The division and explain quite how long he expects the House to how long he expects the House to continue this evening. And I think, my Lords within it would be to the my Lords within it would be to the improvement of all of us if we could return to our normal ways of doing return to our normal ways of doing things. So I give him notice of that. Let us proceed with the debate. Let us conclude the debate. debate.
Let us conclude the debate. Let us have our division, and then please let us then outside this chamber, if need be, reach an agreement on drawing stamps at the appropriate time. Ministers have done enough. My colleagues have done enough. The House has done enough. The staff have done enough.
22:04
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can. Very briefly come. To the despatch box. Now, can I. Also say. How much I respect the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
How much I respect the noble Lords? And I'm. We're very clear. I know that the noble Lord and his party didn't support the suggestion of starting 11:00, but it was the decision of the House. My intention
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is when we have these votes are finished, we are going to rise. So minutes. Would be rising.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would be rising. I have no intention, no intention of going beyond that. There are three votes there have the votes three votes there have the votes will be going home and I'm very happy to always do the sky things. In the usual challenge. All of us discuss things in the coming days and weeks on things, but we're having our votes. Then we're going to adjourn the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I can. Very briefly come. To the despatch box. Now, can I. Also say. How much I respect the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
How much I respect the noble Lords? And I'm. We're very clear. I know that the noble Lord and his party didn't support the suggestion of starting 11:00, but it was the decision of the House. My intention
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is when we have these votes are finished, we are going to rise. So minutes. Would be rising.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would be rising. I have no intention, no intention of going beyond that. There are three votes there have the votes three votes there have the votes will be going home and I'm very happy to always do the sky things. In the usual challenge. All of us discuss things in the coming days and weeks on things, but we're having our votes. Then we're going to adjourn the House.
22:05
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And. my Lords, going back to the debate, it's quite extraordinary debate, it's quite extraordinary that the noble Baroness the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the government's records on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy. It's not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people, the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.
I wonder if the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Baroness Scott would explain. To the House. Why it's taken five years for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Why it's taken five years for the her party to come to. The conclusion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That a change of. Use planning is needed. Because when the government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we had a. Plan and we did. And the and. The. Party opposite. But voted.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Against it, we had a plan and we were bringing down numbers quite considerably in asylum hotels. In considerably in asylum hotels. In fact, we would not have any open now if we were still in government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
if we were still in government. my Lords. Correct? Correct. At the heart. At its heart, this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At the heart. At its heart, this debate is about fairness and about local accountability. Time and time again, communities feel that decisions are being made over their heads, imposed without notice, heads, imposed without notice, without consultation and without trust. This is precisely what this amendment seeks to put right. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Minister has sought to distract the Minister has sought to distract from the substance of this issue. The government's record on asylum The government's record on asylum hotels is neither here nor there.
What matters is whether local voices are heard and respected in the decision making process. My Lords, that report the Minister suggested I tabled these most of these amendments for a different purpose. My Lords and Minister knows me well enough to know that when I say something, I mean it. The purpose is clear and principle to ensure that local communities are not treated as bystanders in decisions that reshape their neighbourhoods. Time and time again, the pattern emerges. Decisions made from the centre, delivered without dialogue and defended without accountability.
This cannot continue. This amendment is about restoring the balance between national necessity and local democracy. And on these benches we are determined to stand up for local people and for local communities. And when the opportunity and now I wish to test the opinion on the House by, on, on, first of all on hotels and then on houses of multiple occupation. The question is that amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
73 be agreed to as. 'content'. For.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For. The contrary. Not content. Not content. The question will be decided by a division, and. I will.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And. my Lords, going back to the debate, it's quite extraordinary debate, it's quite extraordinary that the noble Baroness the Minister has chosen to use her reply once again to dwell on the government's records on asylum hotels. This debate is not about asylum policy. It's not even directly about those who arrive in this country. It is about the rights of local people, the rights of communities to have a say when there is a change of use in their area, just as they would for any other form of development or planning decision.
I wonder if the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Baroness Scott would explain. To the House. Why it's taken five years for the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Why it's taken five years for the her party to come to. The conclusion.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That a change of. Use planning is needed. Because when the government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we had a. Plan and we did. And the and. The. Party opposite. But voted.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Against it, we had a plan and we were bringing down numbers quite considerably in asylum hotels. In considerably in asylum hotels. In fact, we would not have any open now if we were still in government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
if we were still in government. my Lords. Correct? Correct. At the heart. At its heart, this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At the heart. At its heart, this debate is about fairness and about local accountability. Time and time again, communities feel that decisions are being made over their heads, imposed without notice, heads, imposed without notice, without consultation and without trust. This is precisely what this amendment seeks to put right. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Minister has sought to distract the Minister has sought to distract from the substance of this issue. The government's record on asylum The government's record on asylum hotels is neither here nor there.
What matters is whether local voices are heard and respected in the decision making process. My Lords, that report the Minister suggested I tabled these most of these amendments for a different purpose. My Lords and Minister knows me well enough to know that when I say something, I mean it. The purpose is clear and principle to ensure that local communities are not treated as bystanders in decisions that reshape their neighbourhoods. Time and time again, the pattern emerges. Decisions made from the centre, delivered without dialogue and defended without accountability.
This cannot continue. This amendment is about restoring the balance between national necessity and local democracy. And on these benches we are determined to stand up for local people and for local communities. And when the opportunity and now I wish to test the opinion on the House by, on, on, first of all on hotels and then on houses of multiple occupation. The question is that amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
73 be agreed to as. 'content'. For.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For. The contrary. Not content. Not content. The question will be decided by a division, and. I will.
22:08
Division
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will. Advise the House when.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. my Lords. Voting is now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is now. Open for order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Any.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Any. Any. Any.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Any. Any.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Any. Any. Required. Required. Thank Required. Thank you. One. One. We One. We have One. We have a. Second Second section. Second section. My Second section. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be. Agreed to? As many as are of that opinion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As many as are of that opinion will say content. To. The contrary, not content. Content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content. The contents will go to the right by the throne and not contents to the left. By the Guardian.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By the Guardian. Thank Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Thank Thanks. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. OK. Yes. Yes. Yes Yes. Yes yes. I. Thank you so. Much. For. Much. For. Serving Much. For. Serving here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. my Lords, the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, the. Question is that amendment. 73 be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Answer. my Lords there have voted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords there have voted contents 83 not contents 113. So the. Not contents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not strip. Thank you. Thank you. Amendment 74 Baroness Scott of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 74 Baroness Scott of Bybrook wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is that amendment 74.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
content. Not content. Question will be decided by a division. And I will advise the House when. House when.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. my Lords, voting is open. Clear the bar. the bar. Socialist Socialist amendment. Socialist amendment. Socialist amendment. Because Because I. Just. Amendment. Amendment. Thing. Amendment. Thing. The Amendment. Thing. The court Amendment. Thing. The court order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question. Is. Amendment 74. Be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion say, content content to. The country not content contents will go to the right by the throne will go to the right by the throne and the not contents to the left by and the not contents to the left by Oh, Oh, yes.
Oh, yes. So. Oh, yes. So. Yeah, Yeah, yeah, Yeah, yeah, I. Want. Want. To. Want. To. I Want. To. I think. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, the question. Is that amendment 74.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment. my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. They have voted contents 84, not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They have voted contents 84, not contents 113. So the not. Contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 75 Baroness Scott of Bybrook. And amendment 76.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Amendments 77, 78 and 79. Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendments 77, 78 and 79. Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hunt of Kings Heath not moved. Amendment 80 Baroness Pinnock. Not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendments 81. And H two. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Moved. Amendment 83. Viscount Hanworth not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Viscount Hanworth not. Moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Moved. my Lords a back to move that the. House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Do now adjourn. The Lord for the. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'll just do it. The question. report. We now adjourned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now adjourned. Oh as many as are of that opinion say, content the contrary not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
say, content the contrary not content. The contents have it. OK, OK. I was just too keen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK, OK. I was just too keen. After sitting on the bench for since 11:00 this morning. the. Do no AGM.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Do no AGM. The House.
Division
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I will. Advise the House when.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. my Lords. Voting is now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is now. Open for order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Any.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Any. Any. Any.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Any. Any.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Any. Any. Required. Required. Thank Required. Thank you. One. One. We One. We have One. We have a. Second Second section. Second section. My Second section. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be. Agreed to? As many as are of that opinion
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As many as are of that opinion will say content. To. The contrary, not content. Content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content. The contents will go to the right by the throne and not contents to the left. By the Guardian.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By the Guardian. Thank Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Thank Thanks. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. OK. Yes. Yes. Yes Yes. Yes yes. I. Thank you so. Much. For. Much. For. Serving Much. For. Serving here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. my Lords, the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, the. Question is that amendment. 73 be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Answer. my Lords there have voted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords there have voted contents 83 not contents 113. So the. Not contents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not strip. Thank you. Thank you. Amendment 74 Baroness Scott of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 74 Baroness Scott of Bybrook wish to test the opinion of the House. The question is that amendment 74.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
content. Not content. Question will be decided by a division. And I will advise the House when. House when.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting is open. my Lords, voting is open. Clear the bar. the bar. Socialist Socialist amendment. Socialist amendment. Socialist amendment. Because Because I. Just. Amendment. Amendment. Thing. Amendment. Thing. The Amendment. Thing. The court Amendment. Thing. The court order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question. Is. Amendment 74. Be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion say, content content to. The country not content contents will go to the right by the throne will go to the right by the throne and the not contents to the left by and the not contents to the left by Oh, Oh, yes.
Oh, yes. So. Oh, yes. So. Yeah, Yeah, yeah, Yeah, yeah, I. Want. Want. To. Want. To. I Want. To. I think. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords, the question. Is that amendment 74.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment. my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my Lords. They have voted contents 84, not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They have voted contents 84, not contents 113. So the not. Contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 75 Baroness Scott of Bybrook. And amendment 76.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Amendments 77, 78 and 79. Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendments 77, 78 and 79. Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hunt of Kings Heath not moved. Amendment 80 Baroness Pinnock. Not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendments 81. And H two. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Moved. Amendment 83. Viscount Hanworth not.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Viscount Hanworth not. Moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Moved. my Lords a back to move that the. House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Do now adjourn. The Lord for the. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'll just do it. The question. report. We now adjourned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now adjourned. Oh as many as are of that opinion say, content the contrary not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
say, content the contrary not content. The contents have it. OK, OK. I was just too keen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK, OK. I was just too keen. After sitting on the bench for since 11:00 this morning. the. Do no AGM.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Do no AGM. The House.