Lords Chamber
Wednesday 29th October 2025
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:06
Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – report stage (day 4) - part one
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The fault The fault of The fault of the The fault of the planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The fault of the planning. Report of the Planning and infrastructure. Bill Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be now considered once again on report.
Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – report stage (day 4) - part one
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The fault The fault of The fault of the The fault of the planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The fault of the planning. Report of the Planning and infrastructure. Bill Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be now considered once again on report.
11:06
Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
again on report. The question is that this bill be now further considered on report. As many as are of that opinion will As many as are of that opinion will say content. The country not content. The contents have it after
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clause 52, amendment 114 Lord Ravensdale. My Lords, I thank my supporters
Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
again on report. The question is that this bill be now further considered on report. As many as are of that opinion will As many as are of that opinion will say content. The country not content. The contents have it after
**** Possible New Speaker ****
clause 52, amendment 114 Lord Ravensdale. My Lords, I thank my supporters
11:08
Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
Young of Norwood Green and Noble friends Lady Parminter. And also thank the noble Lady the Minister, thank the noble Lady the Minister, for all of the engagement we've had on this issue in between committee on this issue in between committee and report. I do feel a slight sense of deja vu bringing this amendment before the House, because amendment before the House, because it's a very similar amendment to the one that was brought up in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act a Levelling Up and Regeneration Act a few years back.
But actually, we've made some really good progress in that intervening period, both that intervening period, both across guidance and legislation. And I'll perhaps concentrate my And I'll perhaps concentrate my remarks on some of the issues that that I've discussed with the minister in between committee and minister in between committee and reports. I think with the government, I think we're in agreement on the general direction agreement on the general direction of travel here. I think our difference is maybe on how this should be implemented.
And if I can come back to one of the one of the thoughts that was raised by the thoughts that was raised by the government, which is on the National planning policy framework, and of course, we do have guidance in that framework now, which is really positive that climates and nature should be considered within planning decisions. But the difference here between the having the duty and the NPPF and having the special regard duty in statute, is really that the with the the NPPF a climate and nature duty is just one consideration among many other considerations for decision makers on the ground to to take account of it doesn't have any elevated weight within within the planning system.
And it's actually quite analogous, I think, to some of the issues I've talked about earlier in Committee on Duties, on regulators, in that regulators at the moment don't have that specific strategic direction in line with the government's goals, which has led to some of the issues around consenting of of large infrastructure, for example. So our our duty using that special regard wording really effectively prioritises or updates climate within the system, which I think really makes that that difference in in ensuring that it's adequate, adequately considered within, within the planning system.
So I think that's that's really the I think the core of our difference with, with the government. But I think the government really needs to consider how climates is, should be, can be better embedded, can have weights within the planning system. The other area that we've we've talked about is the concern around litigation, perhaps legal cases in the courts because of an amendment like this. But actually, since this amendment was first debated in the course of the Levelling Up and regeneration Acts, there are now around eight other legislative or regulatory frameworks that ranges from pension schemes, trustees, financial regulators, NHS trusts, Ofgem, Crown Estate, Great British Energy, Ofwat.
So all of these organisations have climate and nature duties and they have not, as far as I'm aware, resulted in any legal cases. Now, I'd actually say, on the contrary, that the feedback from organisations with these duties appears to demonstrate that the duties are effectively driving the decision making and delivery of climate and nature friendly policies and strategies within these institutions, and the amendment has also been reviewed by planning and legal experts. And really, it's been de-risked by using that well-established legal term of special regards.
And that's been tried and tested in the courts over many years. My Lords in relation to section 66 of the planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, 1992. And I would say, my Lords, it actually provides clarity. We've had a number of cases going through the courts that are actually stopping sustainable developments in, in the UK. So, so I would say it would, it would go in the reverse direction. And this, this would actually provide some welcome clarity to the planning system.
So and my Lords, this is broadly this amendment does have wide support including from the Chartered Institute of Housing Rights, Community Action UK 100, the Town and Country Planning Association. Now, my Lords, we do. I would say finally we do have, I think, a potential way forward here in that the NPPF, the National Planning Policy framework is being updated in between now and the end of the year. And I think there's a really good opportunity here for the government to consider that wording within the NPPF in the updates.
It's it's making. I have proposed some wording to the Minister how the NPPF could be updated really to to go back to that point about adding weights to climate and environment within the planning system. So if the Minister could perhaps consider consider those updates in the revision to the NPPF that's happening between now and and the end of the year, and actually meet with me and other stakeholders after the passage of the bill, I think that would be a good step forward and a good way to address the the outcomes that have been aimed at within, within this amendment.
So, my Lords, in the final analysis, this is really about letting local authorities get on with the job, letting them get on and build sustainable developments and infrastructure right across the country to support growth and support our climate and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nature targets. I beg to move. The amendment proposed after
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment proposed after clause 52, insert the new clause as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
printed on the marshalled list. My Lord, when I saw amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, when I saw amendment 206 and 114, I knew that I had to table my amendment 1 to 1 F so that biodiversity was not forgotten about again, as all attention focussed on climate change. I will say again, and for the last time in say again, and for the last time in this bill, that with enormous political will and also enormous expenditure, it is possible to expenditure, it is possible to reverse climate change. But when a species is lost, then it is gone
But actually, we've made some really good progress in that intervening period, both that intervening period, both across guidance and legislation. And I'll perhaps concentrate my And I'll perhaps concentrate my remarks on some of the issues that that I've discussed with the minister in between committee and minister in between committee and reports. I think with the government, I think we're in agreement on the general direction agreement on the general direction of travel here. I think our difference is maybe on how this should be implemented.
And if I can come back to one of the one of the thoughts that was raised by the thoughts that was raised by the government, which is on the National planning policy framework, and of course, we do have guidance in that framework now, which is really positive that climates and nature should be considered within planning decisions. But the difference here between the having the duty and the NPPF and having the special regard duty in statute, is really that the with the the NPPF a climate and nature duty is just one consideration among many other considerations for decision makers on the ground to to take account of it doesn't have any elevated weight within within the planning system.
And it's actually quite analogous, I think, to some of the issues I've talked about earlier in Committee on Duties, on regulators, in that regulators at the moment don't have that specific strategic direction in line with the government's goals, which has led to some of the issues around consenting of of large infrastructure, for example. So our our duty using that special regard wording really effectively prioritises or updates climate within the system, which I think really makes that that difference in in ensuring that it's adequate, adequately considered within, within the planning system.
So I think that's that's really the I think the core of our difference with, with the government. But I think the government really needs to consider how climates is, should be, can be better embedded, can have weights within the planning system. The other area that we've we've talked about is the concern around litigation, perhaps legal cases in the courts because of an amendment like this. But actually, since this amendment was first debated in the course of the Levelling Up and regeneration Acts, there are now around eight other legislative or regulatory frameworks that ranges from pension schemes, trustees, financial regulators, NHS trusts, Ofgem, Crown Estate, Great British Energy, Ofwat.
So all of these organisations have climate and nature duties and they have not, as far as I'm aware, resulted in any legal cases. Now, I'd actually say, on the contrary, that the feedback from organisations with these duties appears to demonstrate that the duties are effectively driving the decision making and delivery of climate and nature friendly policies and strategies within these institutions, and the amendment has also been reviewed by planning and legal experts. And really, it's been de-risked by using that well-established legal term of special regards.
And that's been tried and tested in the courts over many years. My Lords in relation to section 66 of the planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, 1992. And I would say, my Lords, it actually provides clarity. We've had a number of cases going through the courts that are actually stopping sustainable developments in, in the UK. So, so I would say it would, it would go in the reverse direction. And this, this would actually provide some welcome clarity to the planning system.
So and my Lords, this is broadly this amendment does have wide support including from the Chartered Institute of Housing Rights, Community Action UK 100, the Town and Country Planning Association. Now, my Lords, we do. I would say finally we do have, I think, a potential way forward here in that the NPPF, the National Planning Policy framework is being updated in between now and the end of the year. And I think there's a really good opportunity here for the government to consider that wording within the NPPF in the updates.
It's it's making. I have proposed some wording to the Minister how the NPPF could be updated really to to go back to that point about adding weights to climate and environment within the planning system. So if the Minister could perhaps consider consider those updates in the revision to the NPPF that's happening between now and and the end of the year, and actually meet with me and other stakeholders after the passage of the bill, I think that would be a good step forward and a good way to address the the outcomes that have been aimed at within, within this amendment.
So, my Lords, in the final analysis, this is really about letting local authorities get on with the job, letting them get on and build sustainable developments and infrastructure right across the country to support growth and support our climate and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nature targets. I beg to move. The amendment proposed after
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The amendment proposed after clause 52, insert the new clause as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
printed on the marshalled list. My Lord, when I saw amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, when I saw amendment 206 and 114, I knew that I had to table my amendment 1 to 1 F so that biodiversity was not forgotten about again, as all attention focussed on climate change. I will say again, and for the last time in say again, and for the last time in this bill, that with enormous political will and also enormous expenditure, it is possible to expenditure, it is possible to reverse climate change. But when a species is lost, then it is gone
11:13
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
forever. Also, local authorities have no lockers from climate change. No climate change laws apply to them, but they have many obligations under the Environment Act 2021 to save biodiversity. Therefore, I will risk saying to the distinguished noble Lords who have signed amendment 114 and are far more expert on this matter than I am, that my amendment is more important than theirs. Section subsection two of the amendment is rather vague. I would assert a planning authority when exercising a relevant function under the Planning Act, shall have special regard to the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change, unquote.
I think that the government already has all the powers in the housing regs to impose standards on insulation, heat pumps and issues relating to net zero targets. Indeed, a House of Commons report in 2023 stated that the role of local authorities is already defined, namely implementing and enforcing minimum energy efficiency standards for new Bills, delivering funding to retrofit existing homes and improve their energy efficiency, shaping housing infrastructure and renewable and renewable energy development in their areas. In their role as local planning authorities.
Developing and delivering heat network connections and encouraging active travel, decarbonising public transport and installing public charge points for electric vehicles. That's my Lords is why I say I think amendment 114 is unnecessary. Now, whilst there is only one target on climate change net zero by 2050, the UK has 23 targets on halting and reversing biodiversity loss and there were just published this March and that is as referred to in my amendment. My Lords, the UK National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2020.
For 2030, it is the UK plan to implement the Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed in 2022, in which the UK played a leading role, and of course, the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee have played a very important role. My Lords, all four countries of the United Kingdom have agreed these targets and have their own implementation plans. England via the Environmental Improvement Plan, which has ten goals and number one is called Thriving Plants and Wildlife. I understand the current government are going to tighten up on on the targets, and I have no objection to that.
Now, naturally, I will not run through all of these, but a few are highly relevant to this debate. Part one. Sorry, part of the foreword for England begins in England with a world leading, legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030 and to tackle some of the biggest pressures on our environment. Our Environmental improvement Plan sets out in law action to meet these targets and other key commitments. My Lords, I will quote only from the first four targets under the heading Reducing Threats to Biodiversity one.
Plan and manage all areas to address land and sea use change and reduce biodiversity loss two. Ensure at least 30% of all degraded ecosystems are under effective restoration three effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of land and 30% of ocean by 2030 and four. Halt species extinction, protect genetic biodiversity and manage human wildlife conflicts. My Lords, local government has an absolutely vital role to play in reducing threats to biodiversity and it will be delivered delivered through measures in the Environment Act 2021, especially Local Nature Recovery Strategies, which will be the principal means by which we recover nature.
In England, it is sections 104 to 107, which puts local authorities in the driving seat in recovering nature in their areas. Then subsection six and seven of section 109 give local authorities clear duties on species recovery in sections 98 101, give local authorities duties with regard to biodiversity net gain. My Lords, there's more, but I think I've made the point that whilst there is no specific legislation on climate change for local authorities to follow, they have a large number of legal duties on biodiversity and nature recovery imposed through the 21 act.
I said at the outset, my Lords, that I thought the Noble Lords amendments were irrelevant since local authorities already had a range of planning powers which could assist with carbon reduction. And so, my Lords, by the same yardstick, my amendment is also redundant since we've imposed all those duties on them and the Environment Act. But my purpose here, my Lords, was simply to flag up that climate change is not the only game in town. Reducing carbon and nature recovery are the two sides of the same coin.
And yet we hear and talk about climate change ad nauseam. Whereas nature recovery including trees, peat bogs and oceans is more important and a solution and is a solution to climate change. My Lords, that's why I tabled this amendment, which of course I will not not force to vote, but I simply want the House and all noble Lords not to forget about the importance of nature recovery as everyone
**** Possible New Speaker ****
obsesses about climate change. My Lords, I rise to move my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to move my amendment to oh six and I apologise to the noble Lord. I might add more of nauseam to the debate, but I of nauseam to the debate, but I very much take his point on biodiversity. And of course, climate change and biodiversity are climate change and biodiversity are not either or. They're interlinked and interconnected and completely dependent on each other. So I very much welcome his amendment, and I welcome the other amendment from noble Lord Ravensdale in this group
I think that the government already has all the powers in the housing regs to impose standards on insulation, heat pumps and issues relating to net zero targets. Indeed, a House of Commons report in 2023 stated that the role of local authorities is already defined, namely implementing and enforcing minimum energy efficiency standards for new Bills, delivering funding to retrofit existing homes and improve their energy efficiency, shaping housing infrastructure and renewable and renewable energy development in their areas. In their role as local planning authorities.
Developing and delivering heat network connections and encouraging active travel, decarbonising public transport and installing public charge points for electric vehicles. That's my Lords is why I say I think amendment 114 is unnecessary. Now, whilst there is only one target on climate change net zero by 2050, the UK has 23 targets on halting and reversing biodiversity loss and there were just published this March and that is as referred to in my amendment. My Lords, the UK National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2020.
For 2030, it is the UK plan to implement the Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed in 2022, in which the UK played a leading role, and of course, the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee have played a very important role. My Lords, all four countries of the United Kingdom have agreed these targets and have their own implementation plans. England via the Environmental Improvement Plan, which has ten goals and number one is called Thriving Plants and Wildlife. I understand the current government are going to tighten up on on the targets, and I have no objection to that.
Now, naturally, I will not run through all of these, but a few are highly relevant to this debate. Part one. Sorry, part of the foreword for England begins in England with a world leading, legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030 and to tackle some of the biggest pressures on our environment. Our Environmental improvement Plan sets out in law action to meet these targets and other key commitments. My Lords, I will quote only from the first four targets under the heading Reducing Threats to Biodiversity one.
Plan and manage all areas to address land and sea use change and reduce biodiversity loss two. Ensure at least 30% of all degraded ecosystems are under effective restoration three effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of land and 30% of ocean by 2030 and four. Halt species extinction, protect genetic biodiversity and manage human wildlife conflicts. My Lords, local government has an absolutely vital role to play in reducing threats to biodiversity and it will be delivered delivered through measures in the Environment Act 2021, especially Local Nature Recovery Strategies, which will be the principal means by which we recover nature.
In England, it is sections 104 to 107, which puts local authorities in the driving seat in recovering nature in their areas. Then subsection six and seven of section 109 give local authorities clear duties on species recovery in sections 98 101, give local authorities duties with regard to biodiversity net gain. My Lords, there's more, but I think I've made the point that whilst there is no specific legislation on climate change for local authorities to follow, they have a large number of legal duties on biodiversity and nature recovery imposed through the 21 act.
I said at the outset, my Lords, that I thought the Noble Lords amendments were irrelevant since local authorities already had a range of planning powers which could assist with carbon reduction. And so, my Lords, by the same yardstick, my amendment is also redundant since we've imposed all those duties on them and the Environment Act. But my purpose here, my Lords, was simply to flag up that climate change is not the only game in town. Reducing carbon and nature recovery are the two sides of the same coin.
And yet we hear and talk about climate change ad nauseam. Whereas nature recovery including trees, peat bogs and oceans is more important and a solution and is a solution to climate change. My Lords, that's why I tabled this amendment, which of course I will not not force to vote, but I simply want the House and all noble Lords not to forget about the importance of nature recovery as everyone
**** Possible New Speaker ****
obsesses about climate change. My Lords, I rise to move my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to move my amendment to oh six and I apologise to the noble Lord. I might add more of nauseam to the debate, but I of nauseam to the debate, but I very much take his point on biodiversity. And of course, climate change and biodiversity are climate change and biodiversity are not either or. They're interlinked and interconnected and completely dependent on each other. So I very much welcome his amendment, and I welcome the other amendment from noble Lord Ravensdale in this group
11:19
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
noble Lord Ravensdale in this group as well. So my my amendment is, is about giving a duty to have regard to the Climate Change Act. My Lords, this this is a light touch. It's not prescriptive this amendment, but I believe it's a vital and an important step to ensure that all of our planning and infrastructure decisions are aligned with our binding climate targets and commitments. The Climate Change Act sets a clear target for us to get to net zero, and it's important that that these targets aren't held with the government.
I also support the noble Lord Krebs Private Member's Bill, which is making its way through this House. The too much in the original act is still too centralised around government, and these matters need to. The government needs the help of everybody to ensure that we can make the progress we need to make in the little time we have left to do it on these matters. And that really means that we need to have a devolution in these responsibilities and they need to go.
The government needs to work in partnership with all of these associated bodies and authorities to make sure that all this urgent action stuff that we have to do can get done. So my amendment is not prescriptive. It's not telling the government what to do. I think it has power because it is a general, overarching duty. And as I say, it's a light touch. One if we don't do this stuff, we are going to we know that the infrastructure and our building contribute significantly to to our to our carbon.
We also know that if we don't get this stuff right in the face of a warming planet, we're going to have roads that flood, we're going to have railways that don't work. We're going to have houses that aren't fit for people to live in a warm climate. We're going to have greater health inequalities, greater inequalities, greater illness, inability to conduct the business of state, to lead our lives in the way that we want to do so. So this stuff is not a nice to have.
It's not additional. This is has to be absolutely core to the very fundamental stuff of what we're building today to make sure that it still works and is fit for purpose tomorrow. So this this is this is not just a nice to have. This is essential. I don't think this is overly prescriptive. I don't think in any way is this will stop the government reaching the growth and the progress that they want to do. And we share that goal as well.
But we have to make sure that the growth, the things we build today have are fit for purpose and have a lifespan and can achieve their desired goals and their desired outcomes. So with that, I move my amendment. I also greatly welcome amendment 114 and I recognise the wording in this amendment. This this amendment is is a crucial an important amendment. I think the special regard wording is important. I note what the noble order said, that this has been through a number of processes as well, to make sure that this wording works.
I think it's really important that the government brings forward more guidance on the NPPF, and that that is updated as part of the broader suite of documents on planning, and I also support the amendment one two, one F in the name of the noble Lord Blencathra. And going back to where I started these matters, we mustn't forget about biodiversity. It is absolutely important that noble Lord is absolutely correct that when species go, they are gone forever and they will not come back and we are the worse off for that.
So I will bear in mind his his thoughts that they mustn't be an afterthought. And I hope that we can continue, all of us, to work together on these matters. And with that, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Well, said. My Lords, I wish to speak in
I also support the noble Lord Krebs Private Member's Bill, which is making its way through this House. The too much in the original act is still too centralised around government, and these matters need to. The government needs the help of everybody to ensure that we can make the progress we need to make in the little time we have left to do it on these matters. And that really means that we need to have a devolution in these responsibilities and they need to go.
The government needs to work in partnership with all of these associated bodies and authorities to make sure that all this urgent action stuff that we have to do can get done. So my amendment is not prescriptive. It's not telling the government what to do. I think it has power because it is a general, overarching duty. And as I say, it's a light touch. One if we don't do this stuff, we are going to we know that the infrastructure and our building contribute significantly to to our to our carbon.
We also know that if we don't get this stuff right in the face of a warming planet, we're going to have roads that flood, we're going to have railways that don't work. We're going to have houses that aren't fit for people to live in a warm climate. We're going to have greater health inequalities, greater inequalities, greater illness, inability to conduct the business of state, to lead our lives in the way that we want to do so. So this stuff is not a nice to have.
It's not additional. This is has to be absolutely core to the very fundamental stuff of what we're building today to make sure that it still works and is fit for purpose tomorrow. So this this is this is not just a nice to have. This is essential. I don't think this is overly prescriptive. I don't think in any way is this will stop the government reaching the growth and the progress that they want to do. And we share that goal as well.
But we have to make sure that the growth, the things we build today have are fit for purpose and have a lifespan and can achieve their desired goals and their desired outcomes. So with that, I move my amendment. I also greatly welcome amendment 114 and I recognise the wording in this amendment. This this amendment is is a crucial an important amendment. I think the special regard wording is important. I note what the noble order said, that this has been through a number of processes as well, to make sure that this wording works.
I think it's really important that the government brings forward more guidance on the NPPF, and that that is updated as part of the broader suite of documents on planning, and I also support the amendment one two, one F in the name of the noble Lord Blencathra. And going back to where I started these matters, we mustn't forget about biodiversity. It is absolutely important that noble Lord is absolutely correct that when species go, they are gone forever and they will not come back and we are the worse off for that.
So I will bear in mind his his thoughts that they mustn't be an afterthought. And I hope that we can continue, all of us, to work together on these matters. And with that, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. Well, said. My Lords, I wish to speak in
11:23
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of amendment 114. In the name of my noble friend Lord name of my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, to which I added my name, and I thank the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, for his excellent introduction to the amendment, and also for the hard work that he's done in, in the background, with, with the noble Baroness, the Minister. I also thank the noble Earl Earl Russell for his amendment, which I also support, has a similar intent to 114.
And I also very much thank the noble Lord Lord Blencathra for his reminder to us that biodiversity is also important. And I was a little bit surprised, in fact, because when my Private Member's Bill was debated, which placed a climate and nature duty on all public authorities, the noble Lord Lord Blencathra was not totally supportive. So maybe in the meantime he's reflected and as it come to my side. So I welcome him. Thank you very much for that. But turning to the specific, I just want to make one specific point, because I don't want to extend the debate beyond beyond the limited time we have.
I want to focus on an illustrative example to which the noble Earl Russell has already alluded. The problem of overheating in buildings, because we should all remember that the climate change agenda is not just about mitigation, it's also about adaptation. So in fact, there are more there are multiple targets. The government is committed to net zero by 2050 on the mitigation side, but is also committed in a variety of ways to adapting us to the inevitable consequences of climate change, however good we are at mitigating.
And one aspect of adaptation is to make our buildings future proof in the face of more extreme climate events. And particularly I want to reference overheating because at committee stage back in September, I did ask the noble Baroness, the minister, how many homes that are being built today are resilient in the face of overheating, which is highly likely to become increasingly important. And the noble Baroness very kindly wrote to me on the 18th of September to answer the question.
And the short answer is that in 2025, roughly 50% of new homes are future proofed in relation to heating. So that means half the people who've bought new homes will find them very hard to live in in the decades ahead. That's shocking. We should be really embarrassed about allowing people to spend their valuable money on homes that will be unsuitable in the decades to come. However, the noble Lord, the noble Baroness minister, also pointed out that part of the buildings regulations introduced in 2021 require new residential buildings to to be built in a way that reduces the risk of overheating.
But when the letter goes on to explain how that's done, it includes, for example, by making windows that can be opened when outside temperatures are cooler. Well, my lord, when outside temperatures don't get cooler, it's 25 degrees at night and 39 degrees in the day. Opening windows isn't going to help you. What you really have to do is to present prevent the ingress of heat during during the day. So what I feel is that although a part O of the buildings regulations does allude to making buildings resilient in the face of excess heat, it doesn't go far enough.
And if we look at the recent letter from the adaptation committee written by my successor as Chair of the Adaptation Committee, the noble, my noble friend Baroness Brown of Cambridge, that was written to Emma Hardy, the environment Minister. And the letter emphasises that the risks of overheating are going to double in the decades ahead. So there's an 80% chance of extreme heat in the summer in this country in the foreseeable future. So really, it's unacceptable for us to allow builders to build houses and indeed other public buildings like hospitals and schools that are not resilient in the face of excess heating.
And I do hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will go back and discuss with her officials how we can strengthen the buildings regulations or the NPPF to absolutely ensure that people don't move into new homes or new public buildings today that will be uninhabitable in 20, 30 or 40 years
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time. Thank you. Very interesting. Very interesting. My Lords can I very briefly just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords can I very briefly just add one further point to the support for amendment 114, to which I put my name. I'm sure the Minister will tell us that local authorities and the Ministers already have responsibilities for the roles that are outlined in the amendment, including in the NPPF,
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of amendment 114. In the name of my noble friend Lord name of my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, to which I added my name, and I thank the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, for his excellent introduction to the amendment, and also for the hard work that he's done in, in the background, with, with the noble Baroness, the Minister. I also thank the noble Earl Earl Russell for his amendment, which I also support, has a similar intent to 114.
And I also very much thank the noble Lord Lord Blencathra for his reminder to us that biodiversity is also important. And I was a little bit surprised, in fact, because when my Private Member's Bill was debated, which placed a climate and nature duty on all public authorities, the noble Lord Lord Blencathra was not totally supportive. So maybe in the meantime he's reflected and as it come to my side. So I welcome him. Thank you very much for that. But turning to the specific, I just want to make one specific point, because I don't want to extend the debate beyond beyond the limited time we have.
I want to focus on an illustrative example to which the noble Earl Russell has already alluded. The problem of overheating in buildings, because we should all remember that the climate change agenda is not just about mitigation, it's also about adaptation. So in fact, there are more there are multiple targets. The government is committed to net zero by 2050 on the mitigation side, but is also committed in a variety of ways to adapting us to the inevitable consequences of climate change, however good we are at mitigating.
And one aspect of adaptation is to make our buildings future proof in the face of more extreme climate events. And particularly I want to reference overheating because at committee stage back in September, I did ask the noble Baroness, the minister, how many homes that are being built today are resilient in the face of overheating, which is highly likely to become increasingly important. And the noble Baroness very kindly wrote to me on the 18th of September to answer the question.
And the short answer is that in 2025, roughly 50% of new homes are future proofed in relation to heating. So that means half the people who've bought new homes will find them very hard to live in in the decades ahead. That's shocking. We should be really embarrassed about allowing people to spend their valuable money on homes that will be unsuitable in the decades to come. However, the noble Lord, the noble Baroness minister, also pointed out that part of the buildings regulations introduced in 2021 require new residential buildings to to be built in a way that reduces the risk of overheating.
But when the letter goes on to explain how that's done, it includes, for example, by making windows that can be opened when outside temperatures are cooler. Well, my lord, when outside temperatures don't get cooler, it's 25 degrees at night and 39 degrees in the day. Opening windows isn't going to help you. What you really have to do is to present prevent the ingress of heat during during the day. So what I feel is that although a part O of the buildings regulations does allude to making buildings resilient in the face of excess heat, it doesn't go far enough.
And if we look at the recent letter from the adaptation committee written by my successor as Chair of the Adaptation Committee, the noble, my noble friend Baroness Brown of Cambridge, that was written to Emma Hardy, the environment Minister. And the letter emphasises that the risks of overheating are going to double in the decades ahead. So there's an 80% chance of extreme heat in the summer in this country in the foreseeable future. So really, it's unacceptable for us to allow builders to build houses and indeed other public buildings like hospitals and schools that are not resilient in the face of excess heating.
And I do hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will go back and discuss with her officials how we can strengthen the buildings regulations or the NPPF to absolutely ensure that people don't move into new homes or new public buildings today that will be uninhabitable in 20, 30 or 40 years
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time. Thank you. Very interesting. Very interesting. My Lords can I very briefly just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords can I very briefly just add one further point to the support for amendment 114, to which I put my name. I'm sure the Minister will tell us that local authorities and the Ministers already have responsibilities for the roles that are outlined in the amendment, including in the NPPF,
11:28
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
amendment, including in the NPPF, but this would bring the responsibility up to date and in one place. And I think in these times when. Build baby build could be inferring that only development and nothing else matters, that the clarity that this amendment would provide and an appropriate sense of the importance of balance, it would be long overdue.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think we have an interesting group of amendments at this stage
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think we have an interesting group of amendments at this stage
11:29
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
of the bill. Clearly, we're heading towards part three. But some of this I'm trying to understand why bringing aspects of this into legislation is primary. Legislation is necessary given the existing legislation we already have, and indeed a plethora of programmes put in place by government. Just talking to my Noble friends amendment, I do support though, his 1 to 1 f and the reason I say this we were successful with the Environment Act and then put in place the regulation that there is a.
Bio diversity duty similar, I think, to what the noble Earl Lord Russell is seeking to do with amendment 206, in applying the Climate Change Act. But I think there are very different circumstances here. So climate change and through carbon budgets, we have national programmes which are directly are in effect already control what is happening for local authorities in the carrying out of their duties. What is significantly different when it comes to biodiversity is quite how different parts of the United Kingdom, or I guess in this case, in terms of legislation in England, are and the beauty of the local nature recovery strategies, which I'm yearning to make sure we get into place, is that, of course, the principal thing that a local authority can do is how land is used and what planning permissions are granted in order to make an enhancement to biodiversity.
That's the whole point behind the local nature recovery strategies, and I think it has merit in my Noble friends amendment in trying to link that directly into the achievement of what is a in primary legislation. It's not a regulation, it's primary legislation of our intention of the requirements of the 21 act to achieve effectively stopping the biodiversity by 2030. So combining the the direct links and helping local councils continue to navigate that way is why I think that one, two, one has a lot of merit.
And if my noble friend were to consider the opinion of the House, of course I would be supporting him on that. In terms of the opening amendment, which understandably has attracted the most discussion so far, I, I appreciate the adaptation Committee was not necessarily was critical or felt that the National Adaptation Programme, which I signed off just two years ago, was insufficient, and I understand that. But I wanted to just understand and I appreciate in report stage, we don't have a situation where people can come back.
What real difference this would make. And the reason I say that is, for example, as the noble Lord Lord Krebs has just pointed out, only 50% of new builds are having this situation addressed through building regulations. And one of the key features in this summary of the of Nap3 was that MHCLG now no. Now MHCLG would get on with the building regulations and also other parts of the NPPF, so that to try and eliminate solar ingress, which I think is one of the key concerns he has.
And in a way I appreciate that trying to put stuff into primary legislation forces more, but in reality, the duty is already there, set out in a government strategy under which this government has not yet changed. And therefore I think there are alternative ways, potentially, that we can try and hold the government to account on actually getting this to happen. I think in terms of, I don't know, the legal meaning of special regard as opposed to due regard or whatever other regard exactly means, but I don't think that would make that much difference when it comes to how the Secretary of State is supposed to act in terms of implementing government's set out policy already, in terms of extending this to planning authorities, I think I have a more supportive of subsection two of one one for in order to try and help our local authorities get clarity on how they are going to design their local plans, as we're coming on later to spatial strategies.
But let's be straightforward about this. Climate change, of course, has an impact on biodiversity, but it is not the primary impact. This is why focusing on land, focusing on habitat, we discuss that we debate later non invasive non-native species. So the invasions of that but also overfishing and other likes are key parts, as was set out by the Ipbes report, on which worldwide we as part part of G7 and other organisations have committed to try and address in different ways and hence nap3.
So for that reason I would have supported part of amendment 114, but not all of it. But I'll be interested to hear how the Minister is going to persuade the House that they are actually doing the policies that they've signed up to instead of, dare I say it, Lords having to put it into primary legislation to make them do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their job. My Lords before.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords before. I respond to this group of amendments, can I just convey my amendments, can I just convey my get well wishes to the noble Lady Baroness Hayman who, as you will realise, I very much hope to be
Bio diversity duty similar, I think, to what the noble Earl Lord Russell is seeking to do with amendment 206, in applying the Climate Change Act. But I think there are very different circumstances here. So climate change and through carbon budgets, we have national programmes which are directly are in effect already control what is happening for local authorities in the carrying out of their duties. What is significantly different when it comes to biodiversity is quite how different parts of the United Kingdom, or I guess in this case, in terms of legislation in England, are and the beauty of the local nature recovery strategies, which I'm yearning to make sure we get into place, is that, of course, the principal thing that a local authority can do is how land is used and what planning permissions are granted in order to make an enhancement to biodiversity.
That's the whole point behind the local nature recovery strategies, and I think it has merit in my Noble friends amendment in trying to link that directly into the achievement of what is a in primary legislation. It's not a regulation, it's primary legislation of our intention of the requirements of the 21 act to achieve effectively stopping the biodiversity by 2030. So combining the the direct links and helping local councils continue to navigate that way is why I think that one, two, one has a lot of merit.
And if my noble friend were to consider the opinion of the House, of course I would be supporting him on that. In terms of the opening amendment, which understandably has attracted the most discussion so far, I, I appreciate the adaptation Committee was not necessarily was critical or felt that the National Adaptation Programme, which I signed off just two years ago, was insufficient, and I understand that. But I wanted to just understand and I appreciate in report stage, we don't have a situation where people can come back.
What real difference this would make. And the reason I say that is, for example, as the noble Lord Lord Krebs has just pointed out, only 50% of new builds are having this situation addressed through building regulations. And one of the key features in this summary of the of Nap3 was that MHCLG now no. Now MHCLG would get on with the building regulations and also other parts of the NPPF, so that to try and eliminate solar ingress, which I think is one of the key concerns he has.
And in a way I appreciate that trying to put stuff into primary legislation forces more, but in reality, the duty is already there, set out in a government strategy under which this government has not yet changed. And therefore I think there are alternative ways, potentially, that we can try and hold the government to account on actually getting this to happen. I think in terms of, I don't know, the legal meaning of special regard as opposed to due regard or whatever other regard exactly means, but I don't think that would make that much difference when it comes to how the Secretary of State is supposed to act in terms of implementing government's set out policy already, in terms of extending this to planning authorities, I think I have a more supportive of subsection two of one one for in order to try and help our local authorities get clarity on how they are going to design their local plans, as we're coming on later to spatial strategies.
But let's be straightforward about this. Climate change, of course, has an impact on biodiversity, but it is not the primary impact. This is why focusing on land, focusing on habitat, we discuss that we debate later non invasive non-native species. So the invasions of that but also overfishing and other likes are key parts, as was set out by the Ipbes report, on which worldwide we as part part of G7 and other organisations have committed to try and address in different ways and hence nap3.
So for that reason I would have supported part of amendment 114, but not all of it. But I'll be interested to hear how the Minister is going to persuade the House that they are actually doing the policies that they've signed up to instead of, dare I say it, Lords having to put it into primary legislation to make them do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their job. My Lords before.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords before. I respond to this group of amendments, can I just convey my amendments, can I just convey my get well wishes to the noble Lady Baroness Hayman who, as you will realise, I very much hope to be
11:34
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)
realise, I very much hope to be here with us today. But unfortunately she's unwell. I know she would have wanted to take part in today's discussions but she's unwell so we all send her our very best wishes for a speedy recovery. Thank you. I'm very grateful to hear the passion around your Lordships chamber for both climate change and biodiversity, and the healthy tension that seems to have arisen between the two in this morning's discussion. But of course, they are interdependent on one another, and I think that's the key issue.
So we have to consider both. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale for his amendment 104, which seeks to require the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation in national planning policy, local plans and planning decisions. And I'm very grateful to the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject and other matters concerning the Bill. We support the principle that both central and local governments should be held to a high standard of accountability in considering climate change throughout the planning system.
And of course, I totally agree with the noble Lord Blencathra that local government has a very vital role in all of this. However, as has been made clear in previous debates, planning policy and existing statutory requirements already cover much of the content of this amendment. For example, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires local planning authorities to include policies that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation in their local plans. There's also a requirement in the Environment Act 2021 that environmental factors are considered in the planning system.
It also includes the Environmental Principles duty, which applies to government ministers when making policy. Furthermore, the Environment Agency produced the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy in line with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which all risk management authorities such as district councils, lead. Local flood authorities and internal drainage boards are required to act in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, incorporates the principles of sustainable development, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. We've committed to consulting on a clearer set of national policies to support the decision making this year, and this will fully recognise the importance of the issue, set out more explicit principles to be followed in the planning system, and include further consideration of how the planning system can best address and respond to climate change adaptation and mitigation.
I would encourage the noble Lord to engage with this consultation when it's launched, and the exact wording of these policies and how they interact with other policies in the NPPF will need to be subject to careful consideration. And so it wouldn't be appropriate to commit to a specific wording in advance of this, or prior to the public consultation that needs to take place in relation to the noble Lord Krebs points about overheating, I do understand the point he's made, and as he will know, we we always keep building regulations under review.
But I will take his comments back to the team about what more we need to do to promote the issues around overheating and how we deal with it. It's crucial that we address climate change in an effective way, which avoids being unnecessarily disruptive or giving rise to excess litigation. A legal obligation to give special regard to climate change across the planning system does risk opening many decisions to potential legal challenges, especially given how broad climate changes as a concept, I understand the the good intentions of the noble Lord, but there is a very real risk that the potential for legal challenge opened by this amendment could impede the production of policies and decision making needed to tackle this important issue.
I should stress that whilst planning policies do not at present carry specific legal weight in decision making, this should not obscure the very significant influence which they carry in the operation of the planning system as important material considerations, which must be taken into account when they are relevant. And I have written to all noble Lords on this matter. So I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Price suggestions related to the NPPF. I'm very happy to continue meeting with him on that.
While we agree that climate change is an extremely serious matter in the context of planning, I hope your Lordships agree. The approach I've set out is the more appropriate route to ensure this happens. And for these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord Ravensdale feels able to withdraw his amendment. Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Blencathra seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider the UK National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 when preparing national planning policy.
It also seeks to require relevant planning authorities to have special regard to the UK's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030. I welcome the principle of this amendment as it seeks to embed the environment into planning policy. However, I believe the amendment is unnecessary because it's duplicative of existing legislation that's already in place. When setting policy, government ministers must have, due regard to the Environmental Principles policy statement. This applies to all new policy, including planning policy, the Environmental Principles Policy Statement does set out a very robust framework on how to embed environmental decision making into policy making.
Current national planning policy is clear that local development plans and individual planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment, including protecting sites of biodiversity value. Individual planning applications are assessed against national policies to ensure that decisions are made considering the natural environment. For example, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Where relevant, legislation such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and the Habitats Regulations also applies, which ensure that the environmental impacts of individual planning applications are considered thoroughly before relevant planning authorities make a decision on whether to grant consent.
Local development plans themselves are subject to strategic environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. These regulations require the likely significant effects of a plan or a programme to be reported, and this includes reference to biodiversity as the UK National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 says we have created powerful new tools such as biodiversity, net gain in England, a mandatory approach to development which makes sure habitats for wildlife are left in a measurably better state than they were before the development.
I therefore trust that the noble Earl Lord Blencathra agrees existing legislation and policy is already in place, and this amendment is not needed, and I would ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment. My Lords, turning to amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lord Earl Russell. This amendment would require those performing functions under part three to have regard to Climate Change Act 2008. I recognise the noble Lord is seeking to deepen engagement with the Climate Change Act, but suggests that the existing approach in the bill is sufficient to ensure that such matters are properly considered where appropriate.
Clause 88 three already requires Natural England or the Secretary of State to have regard to relevant strategies and plans, which would include the Climate Change Act, where this was relevant to an EDP. This ensures that the Climate Change Act is factored in where appropriate, but avoids adding undue burden to the preparation of EDPs where it's not relevant. The noble Lord will, of course, be aware of the wider consideration of the Climate Change Act through the planning process, so I hope he understands why, including explicit consideration in the EDP process in this way is not necessary.
On that basis, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
So we have to consider both. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale for his amendment 104, which seeks to require the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation in national planning policy, local plans and planning decisions. And I'm very grateful to the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject and other matters concerning the Bill. We support the principle that both central and local governments should be held to a high standard of accountability in considering climate change throughout the planning system.
And of course, I totally agree with the noble Lord Blencathra that local government has a very vital role in all of this. However, as has been made clear in previous debates, planning policy and existing statutory requirements already cover much of the content of this amendment. For example, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires local planning authorities to include policies that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation in their local plans. There's also a requirement in the Environment Act 2021 that environmental factors are considered in the planning system.
It also includes the Environmental Principles duty, which applies to government ministers when making policy. Furthermore, the Environment Agency produced the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy in line with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which all risk management authorities such as district councils, lead. Local flood authorities and internal drainage boards are required to act in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, incorporates the principles of sustainable development, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. We've committed to consulting on a clearer set of national policies to support the decision making this year, and this will fully recognise the importance of the issue, set out more explicit principles to be followed in the planning system, and include further consideration of how the planning system can best address and respond to climate change adaptation and mitigation.
I would encourage the noble Lord to engage with this consultation when it's launched, and the exact wording of these policies and how they interact with other policies in the NPPF will need to be subject to careful consideration. And so it wouldn't be appropriate to commit to a specific wording in advance of this, or prior to the public consultation that needs to take place in relation to the noble Lord Krebs points about overheating, I do understand the point he's made, and as he will know, we we always keep building regulations under review.
But I will take his comments back to the team about what more we need to do to promote the issues around overheating and how we deal with it. It's crucial that we address climate change in an effective way, which avoids being unnecessarily disruptive or giving rise to excess litigation. A legal obligation to give special regard to climate change across the planning system does risk opening many decisions to potential legal challenges, especially given how broad climate changes as a concept, I understand the the good intentions of the noble Lord, but there is a very real risk that the potential for legal challenge opened by this amendment could impede the production of policies and decision making needed to tackle this important issue.
I should stress that whilst planning policies do not at present carry specific legal weight in decision making, this should not obscure the very significant influence which they carry in the operation of the planning system as important material considerations, which must be taken into account when they are relevant. And I have written to all noble Lords on this matter. So I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Price suggestions related to the NPPF. I'm very happy to continue meeting with him on that.
While we agree that climate change is an extremely serious matter in the context of planning, I hope your Lordships agree. The approach I've set out is the more appropriate route to ensure this happens. And for these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord Ravensdale feels able to withdraw his amendment. Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Blencathra seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider the UK National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 when preparing national planning policy.
It also seeks to require relevant planning authorities to have special regard to the UK's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030. I welcome the principle of this amendment as it seeks to embed the environment into planning policy. However, I believe the amendment is unnecessary because it's duplicative of existing legislation that's already in place. When setting policy, government ministers must have, due regard to the Environmental Principles policy statement. This applies to all new policy, including planning policy, the Environmental Principles Policy Statement does set out a very robust framework on how to embed environmental decision making into policy making.
Current national planning policy is clear that local development plans and individual planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment, including protecting sites of biodiversity value. Individual planning applications are assessed against national policies to ensure that decisions are made considering the natural environment. For example, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Where relevant, legislation such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and the Habitats Regulations also applies, which ensure that the environmental impacts of individual planning applications are considered thoroughly before relevant planning authorities make a decision on whether to grant consent.
Local development plans themselves are subject to strategic environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. These regulations require the likely significant effects of a plan or a programme to be reported, and this includes reference to biodiversity as the UK National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 says we have created powerful new tools such as biodiversity, net gain in England, a mandatory approach to development which makes sure habitats for wildlife are left in a measurably better state than they were before the development.
I therefore trust that the noble Earl Lord Blencathra agrees existing legislation and policy is already in place, and this amendment is not needed, and I would ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment. My Lords, turning to amendment 206, tabled by the noble Lord Earl Russell. This amendment would require those performing functions under part three to have regard to Climate Change Act 2008. I recognise the noble Lord is seeking to deepen engagement with the Climate Change Act, but suggests that the existing approach in the bill is sufficient to ensure that such matters are properly considered where appropriate.
Clause 88 three already requires Natural England or the Secretary of State to have regard to relevant strategies and plans, which would include the Climate Change Act, where this was relevant to an EDP. This ensures that the Climate Change Act is factored in where appropriate, but avoids adding undue burden to the preparation of EDPs where it's not relevant. The noble Lord will, of course, be aware of the wider consideration of the Climate Change Act through the planning process, so I hope he understands why, including explicit consideration in the EDP process in this way is not necessary.
On that basis, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
11:43
Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, provided an excellent summary of climate change not being the only game in town. I think that's a really important consideration, which is why in our amendment 114, we have attempted to join things up and include environment, the Environment Act alongside climate change considerations. But really important point there. And I think the noble Lord Lord Krebs also around that systems join up that we need to consider adaptation very strongly as well in how we take all of this, all of this forward.
I listened very carefully to what the minister had to say. She did list all of the a number of other areas of legislation and guidance in which this is listed. But of course, that's partly the point of this amendment, is that it would provide that link up between all of those scattered mentions of climate and environment throughout the existing legislation and guidance. But I would also say to noble Baroness Lady Murphy that that special regard wording, I think, has been well tested in, in the sense of heritage buildings.
I think that's what what we're trying to drive out here is we recognise it's already reflected. It does need that, that weight within the planning system. But I am encouraged by what the noble Lady the minister had to say around the NPPF and the opportunity to engage with that process. On
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that basis. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Your Lordships pleasure. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 115. The Baroness Willis of Summertown.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Summertown. My Lords, I have retabled the slightly amended versions of 115
I listened very carefully to what the minister had to say. She did list all of the a number of other areas of legislation and guidance in which this is listed. But of course, that's partly the point of this amendment, is that it would provide that link up between all of those scattered mentions of climate and environment throughout the existing legislation and guidance. But I would also say to noble Baroness Lady Murphy that that special regard wording, I think, has been well tested in, in the sense of heritage buildings.
I think that's what what we're trying to drive out here is we recognise it's already reflected. It does need that, that weight within the planning system. But I am encouraged by what the noble Lady the minister had to say around the NPPF and the opportunity to engage with that process. On
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that basis. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Your Lordships pleasure. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 115. The Baroness Willis of Summertown.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Summertown. My Lords, I have retabled the slightly amended versions of 115
11:45
Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
slightly amended versions of 115 and 116, and I thank the noble Baroness Young of Old Scone, Grender and Baroness Manor Castle for their support. These two amendments, 115 and 116, are aimed at trying to ensure that compliance with the Habitats Regulation assessment happens earlier in the process at the Local Plan and the Spatial Development Strategy stage. This would ensure compliance would better direct development away from most vulnerable habitats, as well as helping to speed up the pre-planning process for developers by enabling them to focus on sites more suitable for development.
Now, this approach is very much in line with the conversations I had a number of years ago as a biodiversity scientist in Oxford, and when asked to provide advice for to senior officials from a certain extractive industry when looking for areas to work, they made the point that they often get an extractive right for around ten kilometres, but their footprint is only half a kilometre, and I then asked them what information they therefore needed from US biodiversity scientists, and the answer they came back with is, well, what we want to know is where can we damage now, as a biodiversity scientist, I slightly alarmed by that reply.
But actually that is the nub of the problem and the nub of the. It's a really good question. Can we inform people before the pre-planning stage which areas are suitable for development and which are not based on the ecological risk that they carry if they're damaged? So this is looking at a totally different way of where to put our energies. And it is one that actually did for these extractive industries, but also would within this bill, provide a pragmatic way and a fast way for developers to move on.
So these two amendments are very much in line with the sentiment. And, you know, we should have a mechanism in place already called a land use framework, which should be doing this. But in the absence of this, this is why this amendment is coming forwards. So amendment 115 then provides the local authorities asked the local authorities, when they're developing their local plans, that they must consider the habitats RICS and conduct strategic environmental assessments for all those sites which are proposed for development.
And amendment 116 seeks to ensure the same within the spatial development strategies, so that they already have done the work on the habitat regs, and the planners can then move on the areas that they know they're not going to get a huge pushback the minute they put their plans in to the planning authorities. So I think this would then highlight the areas that can be developed. It would streamline the process. It would protect those really important areas. Of all the things that the the key objects of this bill set out to do, but it's just changing where these things sit in the process to ensure it's good for building and it's good for nature.
But one final point for note while the majority of delays in planning are not caused by environmental regulations, but by other pressures such as lack of resource and expertise, now planning departments, I think the I really want to emphasise it would also reduce the costs because it would be this work would already been done and therefore we don't have a whole slew of environmental impact assessments, all the other things coming in at a later stage and the duplication that is going on that causes much of this delay.
I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 52. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, can I thank the noble Baroness Baroness Bowles for her introduction of this amendment, which I put my name. I read very carefully what the Minister said at committee stage and during various meetings which have taken place, which the Minister kindly arranged, and I was somewhat comforted by the assurances that have been given
Now, this approach is very much in line with the conversations I had a number of years ago as a biodiversity scientist in Oxford, and when asked to provide advice for to senior officials from a certain extractive industry when looking for areas to work, they made the point that they often get an extractive right for around ten kilometres, but their footprint is only half a kilometre, and I then asked them what information they therefore needed from US biodiversity scientists, and the answer they came back with is, well, what we want to know is where can we damage now, as a biodiversity scientist, I slightly alarmed by that reply.
But actually that is the nub of the problem and the nub of the. It's a really good question. Can we inform people before the pre-planning stage which areas are suitable for development and which are not based on the ecological risk that they carry if they're damaged? So this is looking at a totally different way of where to put our energies. And it is one that actually did for these extractive industries, but also would within this bill, provide a pragmatic way and a fast way for developers to move on.
So these two amendments are very much in line with the sentiment. And, you know, we should have a mechanism in place already called a land use framework, which should be doing this. But in the absence of this, this is why this amendment is coming forwards. So amendment 115 then provides the local authorities asked the local authorities, when they're developing their local plans, that they must consider the habitats RICS and conduct strategic environmental assessments for all those sites which are proposed for development.
And amendment 116 seeks to ensure the same within the spatial development strategies, so that they already have done the work on the habitat regs, and the planners can then move on the areas that they know they're not going to get a huge pushback the minute they put their plans in to the planning authorities. So I think this would then highlight the areas that can be developed. It would streamline the process. It would protect those really important areas. Of all the things that the the key objects of this bill set out to do, but it's just changing where these things sit in the process to ensure it's good for building and it's good for nature.
But one final point for note while the majority of delays in planning are not caused by environmental regulations, but by other pressures such as lack of resource and expertise, now planning departments, I think the I really want to emphasise it would also reduce the costs because it would be this work would already been done and therefore we don't have a whole slew of environmental impact assessments, all the other things coming in at a later stage and the duplication that is going on that causes much of this delay.
I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 52. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, can I thank the noble Baroness Baroness Bowles for her introduction of this amendment, which I put my name. I read very carefully what the Minister said at committee stage and during various meetings which have taken place, which the Minister kindly arranged, and I was somewhat comforted by the assurances that have been given
11:49
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
that both the local plans and the spatial strategies are required to take account of the habitats and species regulations, and to conduct appropriate environmental assessments. Because, as an Baroness Willis has outlined, the aim of these amendments is very much to, in conjunction with amendment 130, which we will debate later today, aimed at encouraging as much as possible of the heavy lifting on habitats regulations compliance to be undertaken in stages in advance of planning applications to help guide developers away from more sensitive sites so that they can achieve a faster trip through the planning process.
There is, however, one issue that remains unresolved in my mind, and that is the question raised by amendment 116 as to whether the spatial strategies will be required to take account of the land use framework. I was encouraged on Monday when, in the context of a previous response, the minister spontaneously referred to the land use framework. At least that must mean the land use framework still alive. I thought it might have been parked by new ministers, so perhaps the noble Lady could assure us about the relationship between strategic spatial plans and local plans and the land use framework, and when we might expect to see the land use framework, which are, if properly used, would obviate many of the requirements of part three by having a rational approach to competing land use demands.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I rise very briefly, having attached my name to amendment 115, attached my name to amendment 115, so ably introduced by the noble Lady Baroness Willis and address just addressed by the noble Lady Baroness Young of Old Scone, who is of course our total champion on land use frameworks, and I share land use frameworks, and I share her desire to see progress in that area as soon as possible. I think
There is, however, one issue that remains unresolved in my mind, and that is the question raised by amendment 116 as to whether the spatial strategies will be required to take account of the land use framework. I was encouraged on Monday when, in the context of a previous response, the minister spontaneously referred to the land use framework. At least that must mean the land use framework still alive. I thought it might have been parked by new ministers, so perhaps the noble Lady could assure us about the relationship between strategic spatial plans and local plans and the land use framework, and when we might expect to see the land use framework, which are, if properly used, would obviate many of the requirements of part three by having a rational approach to competing land use demands.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I rise very briefly, having attached my name to amendment 115, attached my name to amendment 115, so ably introduced by the noble Lady Baroness Willis and address just addressed by the noble Lady Baroness Young of Old Scone, who is of course our total champion on land use frameworks, and I share land use frameworks, and I share her desire to see progress in that area as soon as possible. I think
11:51
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
area as soon as possible. I think just to really highlight what this is about and where why we should have these amendments in the bill, the noble Lady Baroness Willett said. A question being asked is where can we cause damage? And that is what is going to happen. And we are talking here about the sites and species protected by the Habitats Regulations, which are of the highest international importance. Now, the noble Lady Baroness young said we've had reassurances from the Minister that that this is taken into account in local plans, but I'm still well, I'd be interested to see what further reassurances the noble Lady the Minister can provide about this, because I don't think that is what is happening.
Whatever. You know, we are in continuing a situation where it's old, don't worry about this. You don't need this amendment because this is already happening. It's already covered by existing rules and regulations and laws. But we all know these things are not happening. So perhaps the noble Lady minister can answer that question. If that is indeed the rules, why is it not happening? And what is the government going to do to make sure that it does happen here, here?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to address amendments 115
Whatever. You know, we are in continuing a situation where it's old, don't worry about this. You don't need this amendment because this is already happening. It's already covered by existing rules and regulations and laws. But we all know these things are not happening. So perhaps the noble Lady minister can answer that question. If that is indeed the rules, why is it not happening? And what is the government going to do to make sure that it does happen here, here?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to address amendments 115
11:52
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
and 116, but with such eloquence by the noble Baronesses in particular, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Young and Baroness Bennett, these amendments attempt to reinforce safeguards within our planning system at a very strategic level. They're precise, and they embed formal compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and go directly into the preparation of local plans and spatial development strategies. They ensure that environmental due diligence is not left, which I think is what all of us are nervous about with regard to this bill.
Until the late stages, when it is most vulnerable to oversight or to legal challenge, amendment 115 obliges local planning authorities to conduct strategic environmental impact assessments for every site considered for development during plan making, and requires that the plan, compliance with Habitats Regulations, is established from the beginning. This ensures that the first step of something that is attached to our hearts so much within this chamber, and hopefully we'll get to talk about it a bit more later on in other groups of the all important mitigation hierarchy.
Avoidance of harm to sensitive habitats in advance is actively enforced before development. Locations are finalised. The current system's reliance on site by site reactive checks too often leaves nature protection exposed to the risk of retrospective fix or reactive compensation. Amendment 116 extends this compelling authorities to guarantee habitat regulation compliance at the highest strategic levels. Both of these amendments make environmental improvements and explicit statutory purpose within planning, a principle that aligns tightly with our own beliefs on these benches.
That operational planning must be future facing and nature positive in its nature, rather than solely a mechanism to accommodate growth. Their adoption would help steer development to appropriate places, supporting broader, non-negotiable national goals to halt and reverse nature. Nature's decline by 2030. And double nature by 2050. I look very much forward to hearing the noble Baroness the minister's response to both of these amendments.
Until the late stages, when it is most vulnerable to oversight or to legal challenge, amendment 115 obliges local planning authorities to conduct strategic environmental impact assessments for every site considered for development during plan making, and requires that the plan, compliance with Habitats Regulations, is established from the beginning. This ensures that the first step of something that is attached to our hearts so much within this chamber, and hopefully we'll get to talk about it a bit more later on in other groups of the all important mitigation hierarchy.
Avoidance of harm to sensitive habitats in advance is actively enforced before development. Locations are finalised. The current system's reliance on site by site reactive checks too often leaves nature protection exposed to the risk of retrospective fix or reactive compensation. Amendment 116 extends this compelling authorities to guarantee habitat regulation compliance at the highest strategic levels. Both of these amendments make environmental improvements and explicit statutory purpose within planning, a principle that aligns tightly with our own beliefs on these benches.
That operational planning must be future facing and nature positive in its nature, rather than solely a mechanism to accommodate growth. Their adoption would help steer development to appropriate places, supporting broader, non-negotiable national goals to halt and reverse nature. Nature's decline by 2030. And double nature by 2050. I look very much forward to hearing the noble Baroness the minister's response to both of these amendments.
11:55
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
My Lords, can I also convey from this side of the House our hopes for a swift recovery of Baroness Hayman? My Lords, as I raised it. Committee stage spatial development strategies and local plans should be the strategic documents that map out development in an area that these could be the stage where all the complex issues and trade offs can be addressed to deliver the housing, the commercial infrastructure, community facilities that we need, while also addressing the environmental impact and other issues.
As such, there is a strong argument that these should include conservation of habitats and species regulation and strategic impact assessments, as well as many other regulations that must often now be carried out on a site by site basis. It would also be an alternative, as I believe Baroness Grender mentioned to the government's proposed EDPs. This, if done correctly with the appropriate legislation, regulation and powers given to those local plans and local authorities could deliver both better outcomes for the environment and a faster, simpler planning system, particularly at some of our previous amendments been included.
For instance, my noble friend Lord Banner amendment on proportionality. As the noble Baroness Willis of Summertown points out, this could facilitate at an earlier stage a focus on areas and sites more appropriate for development and for landowners and developers. It could reduce the cost and speed up the process. We support the intentions of these amendments, however, and unfortunately, if there is a. However the amendment has laid out does not address the key second part ensuring developments in line with an approved Spatial development Strategy or local Plan satisfies the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species regulations, with no further need for environmental impact assessments on a site for site basis.
To address this latter part would require substantial additions to the bill, which are not being proposed. As such, these proposed amendments risk adding additional stage and processes while still needing to substantially repeat these subsequently on a site by site basis. That additional burden adding delays to the planning process and additional costs for no particular benefit. For those reasons, while we support the intentions, we cannot support these amendments. My Lords, I would also like to take this opportunity as we are discussing habitats regulation, to ask the question, does this government still intend to block the development of tens of thousands of much needed homes by giving force to the Habitats Regulation in clause 90 to Ramsar sites?
As such, there is a strong argument that these should include conservation of habitats and species regulation and strategic impact assessments, as well as many other regulations that must often now be carried out on a site by site basis. It would also be an alternative, as I believe Baroness Grender mentioned to the government's proposed EDPs. This, if done correctly with the appropriate legislation, regulation and powers given to those local plans and local authorities could deliver both better outcomes for the environment and a faster, simpler planning system, particularly at some of our previous amendments been included.
For instance, my noble friend Lord Banner amendment on proportionality. As the noble Baroness Willis of Summertown points out, this could facilitate at an earlier stage a focus on areas and sites more appropriate for development and for landowners and developers. It could reduce the cost and speed up the process. We support the intentions of these amendments, however, and unfortunately, if there is a. However the amendment has laid out does not address the key second part ensuring developments in line with an approved Spatial development Strategy or local Plan satisfies the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species regulations, with no further need for environmental impact assessments on a site for site basis.
To address this latter part would require substantial additions to the bill, which are not being proposed. As such, these proposed amendments risk adding additional stage and processes while still needing to substantially repeat these subsequently on a site by site basis. That additional burden adding delays to the planning process and additional costs for no particular benefit. For those reasons, while we support the intentions, we cannot support these amendments. My Lords, I would also like to take this opportunity as we are discussing habitats regulation, to ask the question, does this government still intend to block the development of tens of thousands of much needed homes by giving force to the Habitats Regulation in clause 90 to Ramsar sites?
11:58
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 all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. My Lords Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to ensure local plans are in compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and that an authority who prepares the Local Plan carries out a full environmental impact assessment for all sites designated as suitable for development. In that plan. I hope I can deal with these matters quickly and reassure the noble Lady that local planning authorities are already required to undertake Habitats regulations assessment, where there is the potential for impact on a site or species protected under the regulations.
Additionally, local plans need to undertake strategic environmental assessment, which will form part of the Local Plan that is consulted on and then considered for adoption. The noble Baroness amendment goes further and would require not only a strategic environmental assessment of the plan, but project level environmental impact assessments of sites designated as suitable for development under the plan. As I mentioned during committee stage, this would require a depth of information about a specific development proposal that simply would not be available at the plan making stage, and it is adequately captured by any development that comes forward, which meets the threshold for requiring this further assessment.
I hope this provides the necessary reassurance, and I hope the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment. Turning to amendment 116, the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted an important matter regarding the application of Habitats regulations to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, I would like to reassure her that the amendment she proposes is unnecessary. Paragraph 12 of schedule three to the Bill already ensures that the requirements of the Habitats Regulations are applied to spatial development strategies.
This provision obliges strategic planning authorities to undertake habitat regulations assessments where appropriate. While the noble Baronesses amendment seeks to mandate habitat regulation assessments for specific site allocations within spatial development strategies, the bill explicitly prohibits such allocations. As a result, strategic planning authorities will not be in a position to carry out site specific habitat regulation assessments during preparation of SDS. Such assessments, if required, would need to be conducted at a later stage in the planning process. Even if this amendment was accepted by the House, I would just answer a couple of the questions that have been asked in relation to the noble.
My noble friend Lady Yeung's question about the land use framework. This is being actively worked on by Defra. It is due for publication next year, and in response to the noble Lord Jamieson question about Ramsar, we have a debate about that later on in the course of the bill. So I'm sure he will have his questions answered at that point. Given these clarifications, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendments. So I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her reply.
I would just like to make a couple of points. I think what we're talking about here is both about matter of scale and timing. Now, if we had a land use framework in place, I hope that
Additionally, local plans need to undertake strategic environmental assessment, which will form part of the Local Plan that is consulted on and then considered for adoption. The noble Baroness amendment goes further and would require not only a strategic environmental assessment of the plan, but project level environmental impact assessments of sites designated as suitable for development under the plan. As I mentioned during committee stage, this would require a depth of information about a specific development proposal that simply would not be available at the plan making stage, and it is adequately captured by any development that comes forward, which meets the threshold for requiring this further assessment.
I hope this provides the necessary reassurance, and I hope the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment. Turning to amendment 116, the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted an important matter regarding the application of Habitats regulations to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, I would like to reassure her that the amendment she proposes is unnecessary. Paragraph 12 of schedule three to the Bill already ensures that the requirements of the Habitats Regulations are applied to spatial development strategies.
This provision obliges strategic planning authorities to undertake habitat regulations assessments where appropriate. While the noble Baronesses amendment seeks to mandate habitat regulation assessments for specific site allocations within spatial development strategies, the bill explicitly prohibits such allocations. As a result, strategic planning authorities will not be in a position to carry out site specific habitat regulation assessments during preparation of SDS. Such assessments, if required, would need to be conducted at a later stage in the planning process. Even if this amendment was accepted by the House, I would just answer a couple of the questions that have been asked in relation to the noble.
My noble friend Lady Yeung's question about the land use framework. This is being actively worked on by Defra. It is due for publication next year, and in response to the noble Lord Jamieson question about Ramsar, we have a debate about that later on in the course of the bill. So I'm sure he will have his questions answered at that point. Given these clarifications, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendments. So I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her reply.
I would just like to make a couple of points. I think what we're talking about here is both about matter of scale and timing. Now, if we had a land use framework in place, I hope that
12:03
Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
that would be looking at the habitat regs for different areas that had been earmarked as being that had been earmarked as being appropriate for development and appropriate for farming, and appropriate for all the other land appropriate for all the other land uses that we need in this country. But we don't have it in place. So then then it comes down to a matter of, well, a matter of scale. We can argue that we have to wait until we get to the very fine detail of a plan coming in through a developer, and then at that point, they have and then at that point, they have to then get the habitats regs in place.
But actually that and this is where I'm afraid I do disagree is where I'm afraid I do disagree with with the, the Conservative benches. That is not the point of these amendments. The point of these amendments. The point of these amendments is to say, let's do that before the developers actually go in. And if you do it before, it makes it faster and cheaper and they can then move in quickly. Right now it's one barrier after another for the developer. So I don't understand this matter of I don't understand this matter of timing and this matter of detail.
That is, we keep coming back to the detailed detail detail, but we have detailed detail detail, but we have to take a strategic approach. Isn't that what strategic plans are for? And if we're not going to put them in strategic plans, where are they going to be? However, I realise I do appreciate the response from the lady of the noble Labour Minister and therefore I beg to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 116 Baroness Willis of Summertown not moved. Amendment 117. Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not moved. Amendment 117. Lord Foster of Bath. My Lords, can. I begin by declaring my interest
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of the Gambling Reform? I intend to speak only on amendment I intend to speak only on amendment 117 in my name, and I'm enormously grateful to the noble lady Baroness
But actually that and this is where I'm afraid I do disagree is where I'm afraid I do disagree with with the, the Conservative benches. That is not the point of these amendments. The point of these amendments. The point of these amendments is to say, let's do that before the developers actually go in. And if you do it before, it makes it faster and cheaper and they can then move in quickly. Right now it's one barrier after another for the developer. So I don't understand this matter of I don't understand this matter of timing and this matter of detail.
That is, we keep coming back to the detailed detail detail, but we have detailed detail detail, but we have to take a strategic approach. Isn't that what strategic plans are for? And if we're not going to put them in strategic plans, where are they going to be? However, I realise I do appreciate the response from the lady of the noble Labour Minister and therefore I beg to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 116 Baroness Willis of Summertown not moved. Amendment 117. Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not moved. Amendment 117. Lord Foster of Bath. My Lords, can. I begin by declaring my interest
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of the Gambling Reform? I intend to speak only on amendment I intend to speak only on amendment 117 in my name, and I'm enormously grateful to the noble lady Baroness
12:03
Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
grateful to the noble lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for her support for the amendment. At committee stage. I raised this issue and I explained the urgent need to give local authorities additional powers to limit the number of gambling premises on our high streets. And it's no coincidence that gambling operators wish to locate their premises in those deprived areas where people can least afford to gamble and yet, sadly, gamble most. And research shows that the most deprived local authorities have three times as many gambling premises per head of population as the least deprived local authorities, and there are not only clear links with increased crime, but, crucially, higher levels of gambling, harm and the problems of course this creates for individuals, their families and those communities.
But councils who wish to reduce this harm by limiting the numbers of gambling premises come up against the most pernicious part of the Gambling Act 2005, and that is section 153, which actually requires them to permit the use of premises for gambling in the absence of very specific reasons not to do so, but the powers therefore they need, which they already have in the case of light of alcohol licensing, is to be able to conduct prior evidence based assessment of the impact of the number of gambling premises in particular areas and that assessment, if that assessment shows that in any particular area, there are already so many gambling premises that any more would be harmful to the well-being of the community, they can publish that assessment, a cumulative impact assessment, and once they have done so, it then acts as grounds for refusing permission for yet more gambling premises.
And that's simply what this amendment seeks to achieve. Now, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who was the relevant minister at the time, knows that is exactly what the conservatives proposed in their 2003 White Paper. The conservatives supported. It's also what the current government has said they want to achieve on the 9th of June. In reply to a written question. In the other place, the DCMS minister said cumulative impact assessments would allow local authorities to take into account a wide range of evidence to inform licensing decisions and to consider the cumulative impact of gambling premises in a particular area.
We look, she said. We will look to complement local authorities existing powers in relation to the licensing of gambling premises. When parliamentary time allows. But my Lords, even the Prime Minister has made clear that he supports it on behalf of the government. He said it is important that local authorities are given additional tools and powers to ensure vibrant high streets. We are looking at introducing cumulative impact assessments like those already in place at alcohol licensing, and we will give councils stronger powers over the location and number of gambling outlets to help create safe, thriving high streets.
But the minister and the Prime Minister both spoke about local authorities and so have I. However, we have to bear in mind that we're gambling. Operator wishes to open new gambling premises. It needs both planning permission from the local authority, wearing its planning authority hat and also a gambling premises licence from the local authority wearing its licensing authority hat. And because this is a planning bill, the amendment that I moved in committee gave the powers to make the cumulative impact assessment to the planning authority.
Now, in reply, the local noble Lord, the Minister said the government are of the view that the most appropriate body to assess the cumulative impact of licensed gambling premises is the local licensing authority rather than the planning authority, and that's why they were not willing to support it in the amendment that I am now moving. I have accordingly, given the licensing authority the power to make a cumulative impact assessment exactly as happens for alcohol licensing and to the planning authority the duty to take it into account when deciding whether or not to grant planning permission for gambling premises.
Again, exactly as applies to alcohol licensing. And I have been absolutely assured that this falls within the scope of the bill. My Lord, this is a power which local authorities urgently need to prevent the undue proliferation of gambling premises, and only on Monday of this week. In the other place, the Minister from Deech CLG, in a written answer, extolled the virtues of cumulative impact assessments to tackle these issues. And she said we will introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows.
Now, My Lords, this Bill provides the parliamentary time and the and the amendment can deliver what both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister and the government say that they want. Now, my Lords, I'm more than happy to accept that. The Minister may say there are some technical deficiencies with the amendment. I genuinely don't think there are. But if that if that is her response, and if she is willing to agree to have a meeting to discuss it before we get to Third Reading, then I can absolutely assure her I won't delay the House.
I will be willing later on to withdraw the amendment. But at this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stage, to enable the debate, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 52, insert the following new clause the words as printed on the Marshall List.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Marshall List. On the noble Lady. The Minister also send my best wishes to the noble lady, Baroness Chapman. She's noble lady, Baroness Chapman. She's always an ally on Heyman. Heyman. always an ally on Heyman. Heyman. Sorry. She's always an ally. On the topic of small business, which is a topic of small business, which is a subject of my amendment, amendment 121G and I concentrate on this, if
But councils who wish to reduce this harm by limiting the numbers of gambling premises come up against the most pernicious part of the Gambling Act 2005, and that is section 153, which actually requires them to permit the use of premises for gambling in the absence of very specific reasons not to do so, but the powers therefore they need, which they already have in the case of light of alcohol licensing, is to be able to conduct prior evidence based assessment of the impact of the number of gambling premises in particular areas and that assessment, if that assessment shows that in any particular area, there are already so many gambling premises that any more would be harmful to the well-being of the community, they can publish that assessment, a cumulative impact assessment, and once they have done so, it then acts as grounds for refusing permission for yet more gambling premises.
And that's simply what this amendment seeks to achieve. Now, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who was the relevant minister at the time, knows that is exactly what the conservatives proposed in their 2003 White Paper. The conservatives supported. It's also what the current government has said they want to achieve on the 9th of June. In reply to a written question. In the other place, the DCMS minister said cumulative impact assessments would allow local authorities to take into account a wide range of evidence to inform licensing decisions and to consider the cumulative impact of gambling premises in a particular area.
We look, she said. We will look to complement local authorities existing powers in relation to the licensing of gambling premises. When parliamentary time allows. But my Lords, even the Prime Minister has made clear that he supports it on behalf of the government. He said it is important that local authorities are given additional tools and powers to ensure vibrant high streets. We are looking at introducing cumulative impact assessments like those already in place at alcohol licensing, and we will give councils stronger powers over the location and number of gambling outlets to help create safe, thriving high streets.
But the minister and the Prime Minister both spoke about local authorities and so have I. However, we have to bear in mind that we're gambling. Operator wishes to open new gambling premises. It needs both planning permission from the local authority, wearing its planning authority hat and also a gambling premises licence from the local authority wearing its licensing authority hat. And because this is a planning bill, the amendment that I moved in committee gave the powers to make the cumulative impact assessment to the planning authority.
Now, in reply, the local noble Lord, the Minister said the government are of the view that the most appropriate body to assess the cumulative impact of licensed gambling premises is the local licensing authority rather than the planning authority, and that's why they were not willing to support it in the amendment that I am now moving. I have accordingly, given the licensing authority the power to make a cumulative impact assessment exactly as happens for alcohol licensing and to the planning authority the duty to take it into account when deciding whether or not to grant planning permission for gambling premises.
Again, exactly as applies to alcohol licensing. And I have been absolutely assured that this falls within the scope of the bill. My Lord, this is a power which local authorities urgently need to prevent the undue proliferation of gambling premises, and only on Monday of this week. In the other place, the Minister from Deech CLG, in a written answer, extolled the virtues of cumulative impact assessments to tackle these issues. And she said we will introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows.
Now, My Lords, this Bill provides the parliamentary time and the and the amendment can deliver what both the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister and the government say that they want. Now, my Lords, I'm more than happy to accept that. The Minister may say there are some technical deficiencies with the amendment. I genuinely don't think there are. But if that if that is her response, and if she is willing to agree to have a meeting to discuss it before we get to Third Reading, then I can absolutely assure her I won't delay the House.
I will be willing later on to withdraw the amendment. But at this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
stage, to enable the debate, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 52, insert the following new clause the words as printed on the Marshall List.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Marshall List. On the noble Lady. The Minister also send my best wishes to the noble lady, Baroness Chapman. She's noble lady, Baroness Chapman. She's always an ally on Heyman. Heyman. always an ally on Heyman. Heyman. Sorry. She's always an ally. On the topic of small business, which is a topic of small business, which is a subject of my amendment, amendment 121G and I concentrate on this, if
12:11
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
121G and I concentrate on this, if I may, rather than on gambling premises which have been put in this group. And I thought the noble Lord Lord Foster of Bath spoke with great eloquence, for which I thank him. I tabled one, two, one G. Following the discussion on amendment 119, this is an attempt to persuade the Minister to think again. Although it was a late debate, there was considerable support in the House for my attempt in amendment 119.
I continue to prefer that formula myself and am planning to divide on it. However, this alternative formulation would ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under this bill gave due consideration to the difficulties often faced by SME developers when engaging with the planning system. Such businesses spread across the country could make a much larger contribution to the government's housebuilding target of 1.5 million homes. Achievement of this target is going backwards, as we know from the leaked letter from the House Builders Federation to the OBR with productivity, which I also care a lot about, also adversely affected small entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country and if freed up, as our cross-party report by the Built Environment Committee on Demand for Housing recommended can make a huge difference.
The difficulties they face meant that in the last 30 years or so, the share of smaller operators in housing has declined from 39% to 10%. And actually, I heard last week from another noble Lord to a new low of 9%. The good news is that there seems to be a wide measure of agreement that we must reverse this trend, and I believe that we must use this bill to make things easier. My new amendment, which may be easier for the government to agree to, would introduce a duty to reduce the difficulties faced when engaging in the planning process, but to do so in planning guidance and planning guidance.
This leaves the Minister much more room for manoeuvre than my previous amendment did. It would ultimately be for DHS ministers to decide how best to achieve the shift towards SMEs and to translate it into guidance, but we must have a reference to reducing barriers to SMEs on the face of this bill. If such businesses and their charitable counterparts are going to start resuming their historic place in housing, the changes in the site size thresholds working paper which the minister referenced are generally welcome, but we need something more concrete to deliver the crucial diversification of housing practice.
For example, an SME target for local authorities, Homes England and or Natural England or some other means that can be decided on later. But a reference to the SME mission the government purports to support is needed because in Whitehall and in these bodies, there is limited support for small business. I know this from my long career, dealing with all of them. As noble Lords know, I am passionate about reducing barriers to SMEs, and referring to this in the Bill is the way I believe, to inject more competition and diversity and enterprise into the sector.
SME building in small developments is good for community cohesion, good for local employment and above all, good for growth. It's extraordinary. There's nothing in the bill to promote it, so I hope the Minister will be willing to agree to amend guidance accordingly, either in a formal undertaking to the House, going beyond the consultations that are going on, or in a government amendment, she would gain many
**** Possible New Speaker ****
plaudits and I encourage her to think again. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK. Thank you. I rise to speak solely on amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord Foster of Bath, to which I attach my name, and the noble Lord has already eloquently noble Lord has already eloquently and very powerfully introduced. I just want to add a little bit of
I continue to prefer that formula myself and am planning to divide on it. However, this alternative formulation would ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under this bill gave due consideration to the difficulties often faced by SME developers when engaging with the planning system. Such businesses spread across the country could make a much larger contribution to the government's housebuilding target of 1.5 million homes. Achievement of this target is going backwards, as we know from the leaked letter from the House Builders Federation to the OBR with productivity, which I also care a lot about, also adversely affected small entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country and if freed up, as our cross-party report by the Built Environment Committee on Demand for Housing recommended can make a huge difference.
The difficulties they face meant that in the last 30 years or so, the share of smaller operators in housing has declined from 39% to 10%. And actually, I heard last week from another noble Lord to a new low of 9%. The good news is that there seems to be a wide measure of agreement that we must reverse this trend, and I believe that we must use this bill to make things easier. My new amendment, which may be easier for the government to agree to, would introduce a duty to reduce the difficulties faced when engaging in the planning process, but to do so in planning guidance and planning guidance.
This leaves the Minister much more room for manoeuvre than my previous amendment did. It would ultimately be for DHS ministers to decide how best to achieve the shift towards SMEs and to translate it into guidance, but we must have a reference to reducing barriers to SMEs on the face of this bill. If such businesses and their charitable counterparts are going to start resuming their historic place in housing, the changes in the site size thresholds working paper which the minister referenced are generally welcome, but we need something more concrete to deliver the crucial diversification of housing practice.
For example, an SME target for local authorities, Homes England and or Natural England or some other means that can be decided on later. But a reference to the SME mission the government purports to support is needed because in Whitehall and in these bodies, there is limited support for small business. I know this from my long career, dealing with all of them. As noble Lords know, I am passionate about reducing barriers to SMEs, and referring to this in the Bill is the way I believe, to inject more competition and diversity and enterprise into the sector.
SME building in small developments is good for community cohesion, good for local employment and above all, good for growth. It's extraordinary. There's nothing in the bill to promote it, so I hope the Minister will be willing to agree to amend guidance accordingly, either in a formal undertaking to the House, going beyond the consultations that are going on, or in a government amendment, she would gain many
**** Possible New Speaker ****
plaudits and I encourage her to think again. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
OK. Thank you. I rise to speak solely on amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord Foster of Bath, to which I attach my name, and the noble Lord has already eloquently noble Lord has already eloquently and very powerfully introduced. I just want to add a little bit of
12:15
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
just want to add a little bit of context and a little more information to what the noble Lord said, and the context is that at the Treasury Select Committee yesterday, which was, of course, talking about taxing gambling rather than licensing it, but nonetheless, I think this is a really relevant comment. The head of UK Betting and Gaming Council was asked about the social ills of gambling and said there is no social ill. She said that the industry is doing everything it possibly can in order to mitigate any harms that may be caused by our products.
Now, I would suggest that's testimony that is either not being honest or is astonishingly ignorant, unbelievably ignorant. What of course the industry is doing. Is everything possible to make money? And what we have is an extremely extreme inequality of arms, where you have the industry and you have local authorities very much in deprived areas, as the noble Lord foster said, who just cannot do anything to stop the social ill, the damage they can see being done. And I think just I mean, these stories come out every week.
But just to point to some recent statistics, just in the last couple of days, file on four investigates as he has looked at some research from Swansea University about the scale of gambling harms within the military community, both serving personnel and veterans. And their survey found that of those they surveyed, 72% gambled. These were serving people from across the forces, a quarter reported some harm. Now, if you think about your local council or licensing authority in an area with one or more military installations, you know that you are going to be forced to allow things through that are going to do particular harms to people in our forces.
And of course, as the noble Lord foster said, this is something that generally targets the most disadvantaged areas. Slot machine shops, also known as adult gaming centres. They're 7% up since 2022, disproportionately concentrated in the most deprived areas. More than half of the all of the adult gaming centres in England are in 20% of the most deprived and most 20% most deprived wards. If you take, for example, Middlesbrough and Hull, the fourth and fifth most deprived local areas in the country.
They have 28 adult gaming centres between them. And just one final stat because I think this is terribly important. What we are allowing is a tax on people's desperation. The Gambling Commission survey, out this month showed that the top reason for gambling, given 85% of people gambled because they hoped to have a big win. People are desperate, and 27% of those living in the most deprived areas gambled at least weekly. In the least deprived areas,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the figure is 14% high. Lords I would like to make a few.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords I would like to make a few. Remarks on the amendment 121G in the name of my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe. But I do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But I do. Support amendment one 117 in the name of the noble Lord Foster of Bath, on gambling. Premises.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Premises. MP. Who represented a town. Centre. Redditch, where.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Redditch, where. We did often. See those challenges. Maintaining a healthy mix. Of shops and businesses. And when. Thinking about. Planning decisions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning decisions. On a holistic basis would have been very beneficial. These challenges can't be fixed by
Now, I would suggest that's testimony that is either not being honest or is astonishingly ignorant, unbelievably ignorant. What of course the industry is doing. Is everything possible to make money? And what we have is an extremely extreme inequality of arms, where you have the industry and you have local authorities very much in deprived areas, as the noble Lord foster said, who just cannot do anything to stop the social ill, the damage they can see being done. And I think just I mean, these stories come out every week.
But just to point to some recent statistics, just in the last couple of days, file on four investigates as he has looked at some research from Swansea University about the scale of gambling harms within the military community, both serving personnel and veterans. And their survey found that of those they surveyed, 72% gambled. These were serving people from across the forces, a quarter reported some harm. Now, if you think about your local council or licensing authority in an area with one or more military installations, you know that you are going to be forced to allow things through that are going to do particular harms to people in our forces.
And of course, as the noble Lord foster said, this is something that generally targets the most disadvantaged areas. Slot machine shops, also known as adult gaming centres. They're 7% up since 2022, disproportionately concentrated in the most deprived areas. More than half of the all of the adult gaming centres in England are in 20% of the most deprived and most 20% most deprived wards. If you take, for example, Middlesbrough and Hull, the fourth and fifth most deprived local areas in the country.
They have 28 adult gaming centres between them. And just one final stat because I think this is terribly important. What we are allowing is a tax on people's desperation. The Gambling Commission survey, out this month showed that the top reason for gambling, given 85% of people gambled because they hoped to have a big win. People are desperate, and 27% of those living in the most deprived areas gambled at least weekly. In the least deprived areas,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the figure is 14% high. Lords I would like to make a few.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords I would like to make a few. Remarks on the amendment 121G in the name of my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe. But I do.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But I do. Support amendment one 117 in the name of the noble Lord Foster of Bath, on gambling. Premises.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Premises. MP. Who represented a town. Centre. Redditch, where.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Redditch, where. We did often. See those challenges. Maintaining a healthy mix. Of shops and businesses. And when. Thinking about. Planning decisions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning decisions. On a holistic basis would have been very beneficial. These challenges can't be fixed by
12:19
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
challenges can't be fixed by planning alone, but planning can. Play a part. Turning to amendment 121G. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Turning to amendment 121G. I speak here and declare my interest as. Someone who. Was a small business owner. And an. Entrepreneur for over 30.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And an. Entrepreneur for over 30. Years, and I thank. My. Lucky stars. That was not in the construction sector. Because I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
construction sector. Because I think, honestly, that is one of the hardest sectors to operate. In. Particularly for a small
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Particularly for a small business. When I was a housing and planning minister, I spent a lot of time with those small and medium.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time with those small and medium. difficult. To. Hear their stories. They were often frustrating, often heartbreaking and tragic. And ultimately we as a country.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are losing. Out if we fail. To support. And nourish. These incredibly hardy. And resilient.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
People, many of them. Are at risk of losing their livelihoods. And in. Fact, some recent. Statistics suggest that around half of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
half of. SME construction. insolvency. By the end of this Parliament. And that's.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And that's. Why I. Support this amendment. My my. Lords, I think what.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords, I think what. forward. Is very sensible. She makes the point that the system too.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Often defaults to one. Size fits all requirements. And they land heaviest on those smaller firms. We
**** Possible New Speaker ****
heaviest on those smaller firms. We talk about the NPPF. That's 76 pages. Relatively
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That's 76 pages. Relatively concise, I agree, but it. Sits on top of a very. Large and complex ecosystem. Of guidance.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And that's one of the concerns that businesses. Repeatedly raise. The real burden lies in all.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That additional guidance, not just the 76 pages of the NPPF those. Volume House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Volume House. Builders can navigate that easily, but not. So SMEs. For instance, negotiating.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
instance, negotiating. Section 106 agreements hits them disproportionately harder. On top of all the cost burdens. That they face. And anyone.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That they face. And anyone. Who's been a. Local representative, whether. A councillor. Or a member. opposition.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Exists to. Virtually all housing. Of any. Kind, no matter where it is. But
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Kind, no matter where it is. But in my experience, those. SME local builders with roots in the community are in a much better
**** Possible New Speaker ****
community are in a much better position to overcome. These. Hurdles and contribute to. Desperately needed housing. So in Desperately needed housing. So in conclusion, he's a practical amendments that support local authorities to plan for places that authorities to plan for places that families want to live, shop in and invest in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They rise to support Lord Frost amendment. I am appalled by the
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
challenges can't be fixed by planning alone, but planning can. Play a part. Turning to amendment 121G. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Turning to amendment 121G. I speak here and declare my interest as. Someone who. Was a small business owner. And an. Entrepreneur for over 30.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And an. Entrepreneur for over 30. Years, and I thank. My. Lucky stars. That was not in the construction sector. Because I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
construction sector. Because I think, honestly, that is one of the hardest sectors to operate. In. Particularly for a small
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Particularly for a small business. When I was a housing and planning minister, I spent a lot of time with those small and medium.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
time with those small and medium. difficult. To. Hear their stories. They were often frustrating, often heartbreaking and tragic. And ultimately we as a country.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are losing. Out if we fail. To support. And nourish. These incredibly hardy. And resilient.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
People, many of them. Are at risk of losing their livelihoods. And in. Fact, some recent. Statistics suggest that around half of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
half of. SME construction. insolvency. By the end of this Parliament. And that's.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And that's. Why I. Support this amendment. My my. Lords, I think what.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords, I think what. forward. Is very sensible. She makes the point that the system too.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Often defaults to one. Size fits all requirements. And they land heaviest on those smaller firms. We
**** Possible New Speaker ****
heaviest on those smaller firms. We talk about the NPPF. That's 76 pages. Relatively
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That's 76 pages. Relatively concise, I agree, but it. Sits on top of a very. Large and complex ecosystem. Of guidance.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And that's one of the concerns that businesses. Repeatedly raise. The real burden lies in all.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That additional guidance, not just the 76 pages of the NPPF those. Volume House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Volume House. Builders can navigate that easily, but not. So SMEs. For instance, negotiating.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
instance, negotiating. Section 106 agreements hits them disproportionately harder. On top of all the cost burdens. That they face. And anyone.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That they face. And anyone. Who's been a. Local representative, whether. A councillor. Or a member. opposition.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Exists to. Virtually all housing. Of any. Kind, no matter where it is. But
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Kind, no matter where it is. But in my experience, those. SME local builders with roots in the community are in a much better
**** Possible New Speaker ****
community are in a much better position to overcome. These. Hurdles and contribute to. Desperately needed housing. So in Desperately needed housing. So in conclusion, he's a practical amendments that support local authorities to plan for places that authorities to plan for places that families want to live, shop in and invest in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They rise to support Lord Frost amendment. I am appalled by the
12:22
Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
statement which was read to the House by Lady Bennett. It's very embarrassing for me to be on the side of Lord. Foster.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Foster. And Lady Bennett. Who have to understand that. But I have to say what she was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But I have to say what she was disgraceful. Industry this is. And how much money is being made.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And how much money is being made. Out of the poorest. And most deprived places. I've
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lived with this problem for many years. My father was a clergyman in. One of. The worst. Slum areas.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Slum areas. Of Britain, and he always said that gambling was a much more that gambling was a much more damaging thing than drink, or any other of the things that are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
referred to, and that it. Was. Particularly damaging in. His number.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
number. Of military personnel. Both retired and present. I just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Both retired and present. I just want to say to the House that I hope that the Minister will not make the. Speech.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speech. Which I. Suspect I might. Have had written for me. As a. Minister. Which goes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which goes. bill. And this particular. Amendment refers to the licensing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
licensing. Duties of a local authority. I know we. Already said. That it was more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Already said. That it was more appropriate to have the licensing authorities, rather than the planning bill, but because this is a planning bill, then we really believe it should be left for a believe it should be left for a different piece of legislation. And yet what the government has said is yet what the government has said is that it will make these changes immediately. There is some opportunity in Parliament to do it opportunity in Parliament to do it now.
This amendment is an opportunity. What is more, it has opportunity. What is more, it has been shown to be within the long been shown to be within the long title of this bill. And so if the Minister says it can't be done because it is not appropriate, I have to say to her, I don't believe the House should accept it. I think the House should say very simply, it is clearly appropriate and it is a clear opportunity. And if the government doesn't support it, I want to say to the government something very tough.
This is about the very people that this government is always banging on about as to what it's supposed to be supporting, these are the people who are most at risk to the kind of bloodsuckers who run the gambling industry and know what they're doing. They are applying to the very people who are most vulnerable and from whom they get most of their money. And I say to the minister, there is a growing anger around the country at what is happening, and the vast sums of money that some of the people who own these companies make the biggest payer of income tax in Britain runs a betting company that says something very deeply offensive about our society.
And I don't believe any of us should stop the battle to change this. I would like to say one thing about Baroness Bobroff's amendment to. I hope the government won't say that it isn't necessary to make the particular point about small businesses. She has concentrated on the construction industry, but I would like to say to the House, very recently, in the last three years, I applied to the local authority to change a residential building back to what it originally was since 1463, a public House.
That piece of planning change, a very small business. I don't know what I was doing at my age, starting a small business, but there we were, a very small business for the benefit of the community. Took a year. It was the year in which construction prices rose faster than they had done for generations. The cost of what one was trying to do for the community at the end of that year was significantly greater than at the beginning, and the reasons for holding it up included the conservation officer complaining that we were going to use second hand permits and bricks, which we were obviously going to do, because that was the attitude I have to these things.
And my architect said, my client is very strongly concerned with climate change and therefore wishes to use second hand materials and got a letter back, a note back from the conservation officer to say, I don't care about climate change. I'm only interested in conservation now. It is very difficult, even if you know something about these things, to put up with a year of that kind of conversation and I merely say to the minister, it is essential that we have in this bill a clear statement that small businesses have to be treated with the consideration that they don't have the means to do the things which big businesses have.
I really hope that we can resurrect the small construction businesses, but we won't do that unless they have special understanding as far as planning is concerned. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I rise very briefly. I hadn't intended to speak, but I will say a intended to speak, but I will say a few words. First of all, I completely agree with my noble completely agree with my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe excellent amendment and I pay tribute to her persistence and tribute to her persistence and indefatigability in defending small and medium sized enterprises. But I
Lord Deben (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
statement which was read to the House by Lady Bennett. It's very embarrassing for me to be on the side of Lord. Foster.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Foster. And Lady Bennett. Who have to understand that. But I have to say what she was
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But I have to say what she was disgraceful. Industry this is. And how much money is being made.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And how much money is being made. Out of the poorest. And most deprived places. I've
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lived with this problem for many years. My father was a clergyman in. One of. The worst. Slum areas.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Slum areas. Of Britain, and he always said that gambling was a much more that gambling was a much more damaging thing than drink, or any other of the things that are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
referred to, and that it. Was. Particularly damaging in. His number.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
number. Of military personnel. Both retired and present. I just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Both retired and present. I just want to say to the House that I hope that the Minister will not make the. Speech.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Speech. Which I. Suspect I might. Have had written for me. As a. Minister. Which goes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which goes. bill. And this particular. Amendment refers to the licensing.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
licensing. Duties of a local authority. I know we. Already said. That it was more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Already said. That it was more appropriate to have the licensing authorities, rather than the planning bill, but because this is a planning bill, then we really believe it should be left for a believe it should be left for a different piece of legislation. And yet what the government has said is yet what the government has said is that it will make these changes immediately. There is some opportunity in Parliament to do it opportunity in Parliament to do it now.
This amendment is an opportunity. What is more, it has opportunity. What is more, it has been shown to be within the long been shown to be within the long title of this bill. And so if the Minister says it can't be done because it is not appropriate, I have to say to her, I don't believe the House should accept it. I think the House should say very simply, it is clearly appropriate and it is a clear opportunity. And if the government doesn't support it, I want to say to the government something very tough.
This is about the very people that this government is always banging on about as to what it's supposed to be supporting, these are the people who are most at risk to the kind of bloodsuckers who run the gambling industry and know what they're doing. They are applying to the very people who are most vulnerable and from whom they get most of their money. And I say to the minister, there is a growing anger around the country at what is happening, and the vast sums of money that some of the people who own these companies make the biggest payer of income tax in Britain runs a betting company that says something very deeply offensive about our society.
And I don't believe any of us should stop the battle to change this. I would like to say one thing about Baroness Bobroff's amendment to. I hope the government won't say that it isn't necessary to make the particular point about small businesses. She has concentrated on the construction industry, but I would like to say to the House, very recently, in the last three years, I applied to the local authority to change a residential building back to what it originally was since 1463, a public House.
That piece of planning change, a very small business. I don't know what I was doing at my age, starting a small business, but there we were, a very small business for the benefit of the community. Took a year. It was the year in which construction prices rose faster than they had done for generations. The cost of what one was trying to do for the community at the end of that year was significantly greater than at the beginning, and the reasons for holding it up included the conservation officer complaining that we were going to use second hand permits and bricks, which we were obviously going to do, because that was the attitude I have to these things.
And my architect said, my client is very strongly concerned with climate change and therefore wishes to use second hand materials and got a letter back, a note back from the conservation officer to say, I don't care about climate change. I'm only interested in conservation now. It is very difficult, even if you know something about these things, to put up with a year of that kind of conversation and I merely say to the minister, it is essential that we have in this bill a clear statement that small businesses have to be treated with the consideration that they don't have the means to do the things which big businesses have.
I really hope that we can resurrect the small construction businesses, but we won't do that unless they have special understanding as far as planning is concerned. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I rise very briefly. I hadn't intended to speak, but I will say a intended to speak, but I will say a few words. First of all, I completely agree with my noble completely agree with my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe excellent amendment and I pay tribute to her persistence and tribute to her persistence and indefatigability in defending small and medium sized enterprises. But I
12:27
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
and medium sized enterprises. But I find myself not always a common phenomenon. Agreeing with my noble friend Lord Deben and his excellent and passionate remarks in support of the noble Lord Foster of Bath amendment 117. And I only say this because I do think that my own experience leads me to believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that there's a balance and fairness in the planning system, as between betting companies who have significant resources at their disposal, particularly legal resources and planning departments in often small local planning, local authorities who often do not have the capacity to push back against some of the planning policies that allow betting companies to put in very deprived areas fixed.
For instance, fixed odds betting terminals. One of the issues which I raised when I had the privilege to serve in the other place, amongst others, with my right hon. Friend Ian Duncan-smith, the member for Chingford and Woodford Green. And I do think that as a communitarian and not a libertarian, I believe that civic society is about protecting those people who are most likely to be the victims of market dysfunction. And I think this is another example of market dysfunction.
It is the zero zero in on people who have very little money and advantage of them is being taken. And I do think that that that is not a draconian proposal to close down betting shops and other facilities and gaming arcades, but it is to redress the balance to allow there to be a cumulative impact assessment on issues around adult social care, depression, illness, penury, frankly, that many people suffer from. And I saw this in my own constituency in Peterborough a number of times.
So you don't have to be a liberal or anti-capitalist or anti-free market in order to support this amendment. It is about fairness, equity. It's about treating people equally, and it's about giving our planning officers and our local councils on planning committee the weapons to make a reasoned, fact based case to prevent development, which it will be undesirable and damaging to their local community. And it's on that basis that I support the Noble Lords excellent amendment, and I hope that the Minister gives it a fair hearing, because I think it's well thought through and considered, and I know my own frontbench will do a similar job in analysis, in analysing the amendment.
And I think there is a consensus that fair play should be at the heart of this, and that planners need weapons to deal with very First.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'd like to. Congratulate the noble Lord Lord Deben. On getting a permission. Within a year. That is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Within a year. That is. Perhaps he. Could give us all a few tips. On how. He achieved that. Secondly, I really want to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secondly, I really want to support. Amendment 119, but I have
For instance, fixed odds betting terminals. One of the issues which I raised when I had the privilege to serve in the other place, amongst others, with my right hon. Friend Ian Duncan-smith, the member for Chingford and Woodford Green. And I do think that as a communitarian and not a libertarian, I believe that civic society is about protecting those people who are most likely to be the victims of market dysfunction. And I think this is another example of market dysfunction.
It is the zero zero in on people who have very little money and advantage of them is being taken. And I do think that that that is not a draconian proposal to close down betting shops and other facilities and gaming arcades, but it is to redress the balance to allow there to be a cumulative impact assessment on issues around adult social care, depression, illness, penury, frankly, that many people suffer from. And I saw this in my own constituency in Peterborough a number of times.
So you don't have to be a liberal or anti-capitalist or anti-free market in order to support this amendment. It is about fairness, equity. It's about treating people equally, and it's about giving our planning officers and our local councils on planning committee the weapons to make a reasoned, fact based case to prevent development, which it will be undesirable and damaging to their local community. And it's on that basis that I support the Noble Lords excellent amendment, and I hope that the Minister gives it a fair hearing, because I think it's well thought through and considered, and I know my own frontbench will do a similar job in analysis, in analysing the amendment.
And I think there is a consensus that fair play should be at the heart of this, and that planners need weapons to deal with very First.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'd like to. Congratulate the noble Lord Lord Deben. On getting a permission. Within a year. That is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Within a year. That is. Perhaps he. Could give us all a few tips. On how. He achieved that. Secondly, I really want to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Secondly, I really want to support. Amendment 119, but I have
12:31
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support. Amendment 119, but I have a concern that it's it's so general, it doesn't specify. What the barriers are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What the barriers are. We may know what. They are from. Personal experience. It doesn't specify how to overcome them. And specify how to overcome them. And so I have a question on really what its practical impact would be if I can be persuaded that simply having it in the Bill to have regard to it and to consider.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The barriers. Isn't simply a tick box exercise. One more thing for the planners to One more thing for the planners to get over. Then I'd be happy to support it. But at the moment, while SM issues in this sector, I while SM issues in this sector, I entirely agree with its, it's difficult to see what real impact
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difficult to see what real impact this amendment would have. My Lords I'd briefly like to rise to speak in support.
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
support. Amendment 119, but I have a concern that it's it's so general, it doesn't specify. What the barriers are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What the barriers are. We may know what. They are from. Personal experience. It doesn't specify how to overcome them. And specify how to overcome them. And so I have a question on really what its practical impact would be if I can be persuaded that simply having it in the Bill to have regard to it and to consider.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The barriers. Isn't simply a tick box exercise. One more thing for the planners to One more thing for the planners to get over. Then I'd be happy to support it. But at the moment, while SM issues in this sector, I while SM issues in this sector, I entirely agree with its, it's difficult to see what real impact
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difficult to see what real impact this amendment would have. My Lords I'd briefly like to rise to speak in support.
12:32
Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
rise to speak in support. Neville-Rolfe. And by.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Extension the. Noble Lord Lord Deben. I was for six years the chairman of a local enterprise partnership. And it's often overlooked that the prosperity in parts of this country, which are having greatest difficulties, can well be majorly improved by SMEs being able to take forward their projects. And of course, as has been said, the rules are the rules for everyone and it is much, much easier for big enterprises which have large head offices and all the rest of it, to deal with the very considerable amount of administrative and other paperwork that is now increasingly becoming part of the planning process.
And of course, that then in turn makes it discriminatory. And we should not, I think, allow that discrimination and in particular, that the kind of impact that major projects have in a place is very often qualitatively rather different from the impact that smaller, much more minor, modest proposals will have. And therefore, I do think that the underlying point behind the noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe amendment is a very, very good one, because what we are doing is actually favouring the big boys over the small boys.
And if you come from a part of England, as I do, which is a long way from many centres of population, there is a very real concern that the way the local economy is going, that increasingly, thanks to the activities of venture capital, for example, and large companies, that the profits that may be made from activities in these areas is being expatriated to other either of the parts of the globe, or certainly other more prosperous parts of our own country.
And therefore, it does seem to me that he's actually essential component of balancing the interests of the various parties engaged in these things, that we do look very carefully at the way in which the administration of the system is carried out, in order to make sure that the the small man gets a fair crack of the whip. Frankly, it's just as simple as that. And as I was listening to both this bit of the debate and for that matter, other parts of the debate on this bill, I remember the words of Robert Burton in The Anatomy of Melancholy and now almost unread mid-seventeenth century book in which he said, are not men mad to write such stuff? We not men mad to write such stuff? We
**** Possible New Speaker ****
intend to make others so. My Lords, a committee stage, we were sympathetic to the intentions were sympathetic to the intentions of the noble Lord Foster of Bath amendment. Government should consider this very carefully. We consider this very carefully. We have heard some powerful speeches on this amendment, which I will not repeat. I would just like to go
Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
rise to speak in support. Neville-Rolfe. And by.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Extension the. Noble Lord Lord Deben. I was for six years the chairman of a local enterprise partnership. And it's often overlooked that the prosperity in parts of this country, which are having greatest difficulties, can well be majorly improved by SMEs being able to take forward their projects. And of course, as has been said, the rules are the rules for everyone and it is much, much easier for big enterprises which have large head offices and all the rest of it, to deal with the very considerable amount of administrative and other paperwork that is now increasingly becoming part of the planning process.
And of course, that then in turn makes it discriminatory. And we should not, I think, allow that discrimination and in particular, that the kind of impact that major projects have in a place is very often qualitatively rather different from the impact that smaller, much more minor, modest proposals will have. And therefore, I do think that the underlying point behind the noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe amendment is a very, very good one, because what we are doing is actually favouring the big boys over the small boys.
And if you come from a part of England, as I do, which is a long way from many centres of population, there is a very real concern that the way the local economy is going, that increasingly, thanks to the activities of venture capital, for example, and large companies, that the profits that may be made from activities in these areas is being expatriated to other either of the parts of the globe, or certainly other more prosperous parts of our own country.
And therefore, it does seem to me that he's actually essential component of balancing the interests of the various parties engaged in these things, that we do look very carefully at the way in which the administration of the system is carried out, in order to make sure that the the small man gets a fair crack of the whip. Frankly, it's just as simple as that. And as I was listening to both this bit of the debate and for that matter, other parts of the debate on this bill, I remember the words of Robert Burton in The Anatomy of Melancholy and now almost unread mid-seventeenth century book in which he said, are not men mad to write such stuff? We not men mad to write such stuff? We
**** Possible New Speaker ****
intend to make others so. My Lords, a committee stage, we were sympathetic to the intentions were sympathetic to the intentions of the noble Lord Foster of Bath amendment. Government should consider this very carefully. We consider this very carefully. We have heard some powerful speeches on this amendment, which I will not repeat. I would just like to go
12:35
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
repeat. I would just like to go back on one point which the noble Lord raised. A few weeks ago. The government spoke from the despatch box and reassured the House that cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing would be considered. When parliamentary time allows. We will hold them to account on this promise. And might the Minister give the House a timescale for that promise? I'd also like to support my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe amendment to support small and medium sized businesses. As we have raised elsewhere in this debate, the planning process is overly bureaucratic and time consuming, and I also share the sentiments of Lord Inglewood that 12 months is frequently a very short time.
This places a significant financial and resources burden on applicants. This burden falls particularly hard on smaller businesses, who do not have the resources and expertise of larger enterprise is, and as we have debated earlier during this report stage, the cost per property of the planning process can be significantly higher for smaller developments. It is right that planning authorities should have regard to this, and I would like to ask the Minister what this government will do to ensure this burden is lowered, particularly for SMEs.
Supporting SMEs is one of the most effective ways to inject greater competition and diversity into the sector and ultimately to strengthen the wider economy. Therefore, we will support my noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
friend's amendments should she choose to test the opinion of the House. Before the noble Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before the noble Lord. Sits down. I'd be enormously grateful if you could just make clear to the House what his clear to the House what his position is on amendment 117. He has said that he is going to hold has said that he is going to hold the government to account, but then wants to know what the timescale is. Well, the timescale is in a couple of minutes time. If we have a vote on this matter, so could the noble Lord just explain where he stands and when he does, so will he.
Bear in mind that those behind him have in mind that those behind him have made very clear their intention to support this amendment?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. I believe.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have made our position very clear and we will hold the government to account. I wonder whether before he sits
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I wonder whether before he sits down, my noble friend would say he has not made the position clear. The benches behind. Want to know The benches behind. Want to know why it is we are not supporting this, but merely giving the this, but merely giving the government yet another chance to get off the hook. Can't we a bit being a bit tough and actually do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
being a bit tough and actually do what we're here for, which is to wrong? Yeah.
This places a significant financial and resources burden on applicants. This burden falls particularly hard on smaller businesses, who do not have the resources and expertise of larger enterprise is, and as we have debated earlier during this report stage, the cost per property of the planning process can be significantly higher for smaller developments. It is right that planning authorities should have regard to this, and I would like to ask the Minister what this government will do to ensure this burden is lowered, particularly for SMEs.
Supporting SMEs is one of the most effective ways to inject greater competition and diversity into the sector and ultimately to strengthen the wider economy. Therefore, we will support my noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
friend's amendments should she choose to test the opinion of the House. Before the noble Lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before the noble Lord. Sits down. I'd be enormously grateful if you could just make clear to the House what his clear to the House what his position is on amendment 117. He has said that he is going to hold has said that he is going to hold the government to account, but then wants to know what the timescale is. Well, the timescale is in a couple of minutes time. If we have a vote on this matter, so could the noble Lord just explain where he stands and when he does, so will he.
Bear in mind that those behind him have in mind that those behind him have made very clear their intention to support this amendment?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes. I believe.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I have made our position very clear and we will hold the government to account. I wonder whether before he sits
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I wonder whether before he sits down, my noble friend would say he has not made the position clear. The benches behind. Want to know The benches behind. Want to know why it is we are not supporting this, but merely giving the this, but merely giving the government yet another chance to get off the hook. Can't we a bit being a bit tough and actually do
**** Possible New Speaker ****
being a bit tough and actually do what we're here for, which is to wrong? Yeah.
12:37
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 think I may put Lord Johnson out of his misery at this point. My Lords, I'd like to thank the noble Lord Foster of Bath for his amendment 117. He raises a very important issue, and I'll explain what we how we intend to address it. As I go through my response to his amendment, I want to assure him that the government intends to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when parliamentary time allows, and I'll elaborate more on that in a moment.
He will have noted that we reiterated this commitment in our Pride in Place strategy, published since the last time we discussed the issue, in which I imagine was what prompted the comments from my honourable friend in the other place that the noble Lord referred to. There is no doubt in my mind about the potential harms that can come forward from gambling, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts. So I you know, I've heard the comments made by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett about what was said in Select Committee, but I think there's consensus across this House that there are undoubtedly harms that come from gambling.
Cumulative impact assessments will strengthen local authorities tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets. We intend for cumulative impact assessments to be used to assess gambling premises licence applications, rather than applications for planning permission or change of use, as in this amendment. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill concerns the planning system rather than the licensing system. I'm sorry Lord Deben, but I'll come to further points on your intervention in a moment, and it's unfortunately not the appropriate vehicle for the introduction of cumulative impact assessments for gambling premises licensing under the Noble Lords assessment.
The Cumulative impact assessment would be published by the Licensing Authority, but would be used during the planning process by the planning authority. I am concerned that the Noble Lords Amendment would risk creating inconsistencies in the approaches of the local authorities, planning policies and the licensing authorities. Statement of licensing principles. The government's view is that it's essential for the licensing authority to consider the cumulative impact assessment in the exercise of its licensing functions, when considering whether or not to grant a premises licence, rather than at the planning stage.
My Lords, this is a planning bill, not a licensing bill. The issue is out of scope. Can I just finish what I'm saying? Because it might it might help. But we do have bills coming forward where licensing will almost certainly be in scope. I want to reassure the noble Lord that the government is actively working to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when we have a suitable vehicle. However, for the reasons I've set out, I would ask him to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw his amendment. Just. Before the noble Lady. The minister sits down and helps me. minister sits down and helps me. She has said that it would cause confusion between licensing and confusion between licensing and planning, but the amendment that is now before the House took account of all the concerns the noble Lady of all the concerns the noble Lady raised. Well, the noble Lord, the minister raised when we debated it minister raised when we debated it earlier, the amendment has now changed in such a way.
It absolutely replicates what is already in statute in relation to alcohol licensing. That has not caused a problem. I do not begin to understand what the difference she understand what the difference she is now saying there is between my amendment and what already exists in legislation in relation to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. Be helpful if she could explain. I thank the noble Lord. As
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Lord. As drafted, the amendment would require planning authorities to make decisions based on assessments make decisions based on assessments published by the licensing authority, effectively placing planning and licensing authorities planning and licensing authorities into potential conflict with one another. It would also not provide for the licensing authority to for the licensing authority to assess licensing applications with respect to its own cumulative impact assessments. I hope that's helpful to the noble Lord. Turning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to amendment 121G. Sorry. I'm just puzzling over the use of the word scope here, and we seem of the word scope here, and we seem to have two different understandings of scope. This is within scope in the bill that's been agreed by our experts in the table office. Yet the noble Lady is saying somehow it's not in scope, saying somehow it's not in scope, in the government's view, can she the noble Lady define what the difference is between scope as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difference is between scope as defined legally and scope as it. Here, here?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here, here? I'm loath to explain why what the table officer's rationale was. the table officer's rationale was. I I'm surprised that the amendment was included in a planning bill, was included in a planning bill, but we are where we are with it. So I'm trying to respond as straightforwardly as I can to say we want to put this cumulative we want to put this cumulative impact assessment in as quickly as we can. We don't believe this bill is the right place for it, and we want to put it in a bill where it is in scope, so we will do that as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
quickly as possible. Why doesn't she just say that she'll accept this in the same she'll accept this in the same terms as the regulations on alcohol? terms as the regulations on alcohol? Then she doesn't promise anything that isn't there. And frankly, it's very worrying for us that she isn't able, having listened to the debate, to accept that the government has got the measurement of scope wrong and that the government has said something about gambling, which, if it were true, would mean that the present law on alcohol is wrong.
I'm sure she doesn't mean to say that to the House, and therefore there isn't this the moment for her to say to the House, well, I will take this away, and I will come back, having looked at it, in which case we don't need to have a vote on it, and that would be much more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sensible. Yes. This this is report stage. My Lords, I do believe that the government's position that this should be related to licensing and not planning is the right position. not planning is the right position. So I'm going to hold my line on it. And I know that will be disappointing to the noble Lord whose amendment this is. But I do think it's very important that we take the issue of cumulative impact assessments as part of the licensing regime, and we will endeavour to bring that forward in an appropriate way when the relevant legislation comes forward.
relevant legislation comes forward. Turning to amendment 121G. This seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium sized developers when medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe for her, as ever, her strong championing of this sector. I share her passion for sector. I share her passion for ensuring we do all we can to support them and can.
I also commend the work of my noble friend commend the work of my noble friend Lord Snape on the APPG for SM Home Builders, who continues to keep me informed on the concerns and informed on the concerns and challenges within the sector, and I welcome the recent launch of their report, setting out all the issues that they're facing and what the government can do. The government is committed to increasing support across the House building sector, especially for SMEs. SMEs have seen their market share shrink since the 1980s, and this long term decline raises concerns about the sustainability of the sector and the loss, the weaker firms, and the loss that weakens the market diversity and resilience in our construction sector.
I would gently point out to the noble lady that there have been a period of 14 years when they've been in government, and they may have wanted to support the sector a bit better during those 14 years. But we do recognise this part of the sector has faced significant challenges in recent years. The planning system has become disproportionate, which contributes to delays, costs and uncertainty. As we've heard around the chamber. However, we consider this amendment is unnecessary and duplicates emerging reforms to the planning system.
As mentioned in previous debates, the amendment would introduce 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 have 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. We feel it would also further complicate our complex planning system, and could create a new avenue by which legal challenges could be brought forward.
That said, I do want to assure noble Lords that the government is committed to improving the experiences of SMEs in the planning system. We are pursuing this through targeted reforms and engagement. In May this year, we published a site Threshold Working paper seeking views on how we might better support small site development and enable our SME House builders to grow. This paper proposed introducing a medium site definition, alongside a range of proposals to support a more simplified and streamlined planning process for applications within this new medium threshold.
We're considering simplifying BNG requirements, exploring exempting these sites from the proposed Building Safety Levy, exempting from build out transparency proposals, maintaining a 13 week statutory time period for 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 wherever possible, using the permission 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 more a more detailed proposals ahead of finalising our policy approach.
So I hope that's helpful to the noble Baroness. An amendment seeking to define SMEs and an alternative way could add unnecessary complexity to the planning system and risk undermining the efforts we're making to ensure proportionality. For these reasons, I hope the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lady will consider withdrawing her amendment. My Lords, I'm sure the noble
He will have noted that we reiterated this commitment in our Pride in Place strategy, published since the last time we discussed the issue, in which I imagine was what prompted the comments from my honourable friend in the other place that the noble Lord referred to. There is no doubt in my mind about the potential harms that can come forward from gambling, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts. So I you know, I've heard the comments made by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett about what was said in Select Committee, but I think there's consensus across this House that there are undoubtedly harms that come from gambling.
Cumulative impact assessments will strengthen local authorities tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets. We intend for cumulative impact assessments to be used to assess gambling premises licence applications, rather than applications for planning permission or change of use, as in this amendment. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill concerns the planning system rather than the licensing system. I'm sorry Lord Deben, but I'll come to further points on your intervention in a moment, and it's unfortunately not the appropriate vehicle for the introduction of cumulative impact assessments for gambling premises licensing under the Noble Lords assessment.
The Cumulative impact assessment would be published by the Licensing Authority, but would be used during the planning process by the planning authority. I am concerned that the Noble Lords Amendment would risk creating inconsistencies in the approaches of the local authorities, planning policies and the licensing authorities. Statement of licensing principles. The government's view is that it's essential for the licensing authority to consider the cumulative impact assessment in the exercise of its licensing functions, when considering whether or not to grant a premises licence, rather than at the planning stage.
My Lords, this is a planning bill, not a licensing bill. The issue is out of scope. Can I just finish what I'm saying? Because it might it might help. But we do have bills coming forward where licensing will almost certainly be in scope. I want to reassure the noble Lord that the government is actively working to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when we have a suitable vehicle. However, for the reasons I've set out, I would ask him to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw his amendment. Just. Before the noble Lady. The minister sits down and helps me. minister sits down and helps me. She has said that it would cause confusion between licensing and confusion between licensing and planning, but the amendment that is now before the House took account of all the concerns the noble Lady of all the concerns the noble Lady raised. Well, the noble Lord, the minister raised when we debated it minister raised when we debated it earlier, the amendment has now changed in such a way.
It absolutely replicates what is already in statute in relation to alcohol licensing. That has not caused a problem. I do not begin to understand what the difference she understand what the difference she is now saying there is between my amendment and what already exists in legislation in relation to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. Be helpful if she could explain. I thank the noble Lord. As
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the noble Lord. As drafted, the amendment would require planning authorities to make decisions based on assessments make decisions based on assessments published by the licensing authority, effectively placing planning and licensing authorities planning and licensing authorities into potential conflict with one another. It would also not provide for the licensing authority to for the licensing authority to assess licensing applications with respect to its own cumulative impact assessments. I hope that's helpful to the noble Lord. Turning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to amendment 121G. Sorry. I'm just puzzling over the use of the word scope here, and we seem of the word scope here, and we seem to have two different understandings of scope. This is within scope in the bill that's been agreed by our experts in the table office. Yet the noble Lady is saying somehow it's not in scope, saying somehow it's not in scope, in the government's view, can she the noble Lady define what the difference is between scope as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
difference is between scope as defined legally and scope as it. Here, here?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here, here? I'm loath to explain why what the table officer's rationale was. the table officer's rationale was. I I'm surprised that the amendment was included in a planning bill, was included in a planning bill, but we are where we are with it. So I'm trying to respond as straightforwardly as I can to say we want to put this cumulative we want to put this cumulative impact assessment in as quickly as we can. We don't believe this bill is the right place for it, and we want to put it in a bill where it is in scope, so we will do that as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
quickly as possible. Why doesn't she just say that she'll accept this in the same she'll accept this in the same terms as the regulations on alcohol? terms as the regulations on alcohol? Then she doesn't promise anything that isn't there. And frankly, it's very worrying for us that she isn't able, having listened to the debate, to accept that the government has got the measurement of scope wrong and that the government has said something about gambling, which, if it were true, would mean that the present law on alcohol is wrong.
I'm sure she doesn't mean to say that to the House, and therefore there isn't this the moment for her to say to the House, well, I will take this away, and I will come back, having looked at it, in which case we don't need to have a vote on it, and that would be much more
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sensible. Yes. This this is report stage. My Lords, I do believe that the government's position that this should be related to licensing and not planning is the right position. not planning is the right position. So I'm going to hold my line on it. And I know that will be disappointing to the noble Lord whose amendment this is. But I do think it's very important that we take the issue of cumulative impact assessments as part of the licensing regime, and we will endeavour to bring that forward in an appropriate way when the relevant legislation comes forward.
relevant legislation comes forward. Turning to amendment 121G. This seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium sized developers when medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe for her, as ever, her strong championing of this sector. I share her passion for sector. I share her passion for ensuring we do all we can to support them and can.
I also commend the work of my noble friend commend the work of my noble friend Lord Snape on the APPG for SM Home Builders, who continues to keep me informed on the concerns and informed on the concerns and challenges within the sector, and I welcome the recent launch of their report, setting out all the issues that they're facing and what the government can do. The government is committed to increasing support across the House building sector, especially for SMEs. SMEs have seen their market share shrink since the 1980s, and this long term decline raises concerns about the sustainability of the sector and the loss, the weaker firms, and the loss that weakens the market diversity and resilience in our construction sector.
I would gently point out to the noble lady that there have been a period of 14 years when they've been in government, and they may have wanted to support the sector a bit better during those 14 years. But we do recognise this part of the sector has faced significant challenges in recent years. The planning system has become disproportionate, which contributes to delays, costs and uncertainty. As we've heard around the chamber. However, we consider this amendment is unnecessary and duplicates emerging reforms to the planning system.
As mentioned in previous debates, the amendment would introduce 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 have 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. We feel it would also further complicate our complex planning system, and could create a new avenue by which legal challenges could be brought forward.
That said, I do want to assure noble Lords that the government is committed to improving the experiences of SMEs in the planning system. We are pursuing this through targeted reforms and engagement. In May this year, we published a site Threshold Working paper seeking views on how we might better support small site development and enable our SME House builders to grow. This paper proposed introducing a medium site definition, alongside a range of proposals to support a more simplified and streamlined planning process for applications within this new medium threshold.
We're considering simplifying BNG requirements, exploring exempting these sites from the proposed Building Safety Levy, exempting from build out transparency proposals, maintaining a 13 week statutory time period for 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 wherever possible, using the permission 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 more a more detailed proposals ahead of finalising our policy approach.
So I hope that's helpful to the noble Baroness. An amendment seeking to define SMEs and an alternative way could add unnecessary complexity to the planning system and risk undermining the efforts we're making to ensure proportionality. For these reasons, I hope the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lady will consider withdrawing her amendment. My Lords, I'm sure the noble
12:48
Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm sure the noble lady. My mind's going Baroness lady. My mind's going Baroness Neville-Rolfe will join me in thanking all members who participated in the debate, and I particularly want to thank the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, Baroness Maclean, Lord Deben and Lord Jackson for their support for my amendment. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that I have spent many hours in the public Bill office discussing this and various iterations of this amendment to ensure that it is absolutely in scope for this legislation.
I can absolutely assure members of this House that this amendment replicates exactly the procedures that are already in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. I can assure all noble Lords that local authorities around the country are supportive of getting this amendment in as quickly as possible. I can assure noble Lords that Ministers, the Prime Minister,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have categorically said they. Kind of just ask. The noble.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord whether he's going. To push this to a vote or withdraw his amendment. We're at that stage now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that stage now. We are at that stage. But I want the House. To be aware. That there. Is support from all quarters to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is support from all quarters to ensure that this is passed. The minister has said that she is not minister has said that she is not accepting my offer to have further discussions to see if we can find a discussions to see if we can find a way forward before Third Reading. She is not accepting the noble Lord Lord Deben suggestion. I am Lord Deben suggestion. I am disappointed that the front bench of the Conservative Party do not appear to be listening to what their backbenchers are saying.
But my Lord, since there is no my Lord, since there is no opportunity to bring this back at another time, the time for decision another time, the time for decision is now and I wish to beg leave to ask the opinion of this House here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ask the opinion of this House here. The question is that amendment 117 be in the name of Lord Foster of Bath be agreed to, as many of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Bath be agreed to, as many of that opinion say. Content. Content the contrary, not content. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not content. The question will be decided by division of the House. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to, as many of that opinion say. Content the contrary,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not content. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not right by the throne, the not That That amendment That amendment 117 That amendment 117 be That amendment 117 be agreed That amendment 117 be agreed to
Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm sure the noble lady. My mind's going Baroness lady. My mind's going Baroness Neville-Rolfe will join me in thanking all members who participated in the debate, and I particularly want to thank the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, Baroness Maclean, Lord Deben and Lord Jackson for their support for my amendment. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that I have spent many hours in the public Bill office discussing this and various iterations of this amendment to ensure that it is absolutely in scope for this legislation.
I can absolutely assure members of this House that this amendment replicates exactly the procedures that are already in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. I can assure all noble Lords that local authorities around the country are supportive of getting this amendment in as quickly as possible. I can assure noble Lords that Ministers, the Prime Minister,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have categorically said they. Kind of just ask. The noble.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord whether he's going. To push this to a vote or withdraw his amendment. We're at that stage now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that stage now. We are at that stage. But I want the House. To be aware. That there. Is support from all quarters to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is support from all quarters to ensure that this is passed. The minister has said that she is not minister has said that she is not accepting my offer to have further discussions to see if we can find a discussions to see if we can find a way forward before Third Reading. She is not accepting the noble Lord Lord Deben suggestion. I am Lord Deben suggestion. I am disappointed that the front bench of the Conservative Party do not appear to be listening to what their backbenchers are saying.
But my Lord, since there is no my Lord, since there is no opportunity to bring this back at another time, the time for decision another time, the time for decision is now and I wish to beg leave to ask the opinion of this House here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
ask the opinion of this House here. The question is that amendment 117 be in the name of Lord Foster of Bath be agreed to, as many of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Bath be agreed to, as many of that opinion say. Content. Content the contrary, not content. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not content. The question will be decided by division of the House. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to, as many of that opinion say. Content the contrary,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not content. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not right by the throne, the not That That amendment That amendment 117 That amendment 117 be That amendment 117 be agreed That amendment 117 be agreed to
13:00
Division
-
Division
There There have There have voted There have voted contents There have voted contents 97, There have voted contents 97, not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords My Lords amendment My Lords amendment 118 My Lords amendment 118.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords amendment 118. Baroness Jones not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Jones not moved. Not moved. I need to be clear. Amendment 119 Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Neville-Rolfe. The reference in the bill to SMEs. And I thank everybody who supported me to respond to the noble Lord Lord Cromwell on amendment 119 is workable, but I know the system and if we pass it, the government, with the help of parliamentary counsel, will amend it suitably. So I beg leave to test
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the opinion of the House on this important amendment. An amendment proposed after clause 52 insert the following new clause 52 insert the following new clause in the words as printed on the marshalled list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content. Content contrary. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not content. I think the contents have it. The question will be decided by The question will be decided by division. I will inform the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
division. I will inform the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I I will I will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My lord My lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My lord. Hello. Amendment be agreed to. As many
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content. Content not content, not content. Content not content, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to by the throne. The not content to the left by the bar, right. the left by the bar, right. OK. OK. So.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, the question is that the amendment be agreed to. the amendment be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There There have There have voted There have voted contents
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There have voted contents There have voted contents 133
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There have voted contents 133 not contents 188. So the not My My Lords My Lords amendment 120 Baroness Jones not amendment 120 Baroness Jones not moved and amendment 121 Baroness Maclean of Redditch not moved and 121 a Baroness Jones also not moved. 121 B was withdrawn. 121 C the Earl 121 B was withdrawn. 121 C the Earl of Caithness moved.
And amendment 121D not moved. Thank you. 121 E
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. Was my intention, as I had signalled to call a vote on this amendment as the. I believed we would get significant support from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords My Lords amendment My Lords amendment 118 My Lords amendment 118.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords amendment 118. Baroness Jones not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Jones not moved. Not moved. I need to be clear. Amendment 119 Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Neville-Rolfe. The reference in the bill to SMEs. And I thank everybody who supported me to respond to the noble Lord Lord Cromwell on amendment 119 is workable, but I know the system and if we pass it, the government, with the help of parliamentary counsel, will amend it suitably. So I beg leave to test
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the opinion of the House on this important amendment. An amendment proposed after clause 52 insert the following new clause 52 insert the following new clause in the words as printed on the marshalled list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content. Content contrary. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not content. I think the contents have it. The question will be decided by The question will be decided by division. I will inform the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
division. I will inform the House when voting is open. Voting is now open. Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I I will I will.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My lord My lord.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My lord. Hello. Amendment be agreed to. As many
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content. Content not content, not content. Content not content, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to by the throne. The not content to the left by the bar, right. the left by the bar, right. OK. OK. So.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, the question is that the amendment be agreed to. the amendment be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There There have There have voted There have voted contents
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There have voted contents There have voted contents 133
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There have voted contents 133 not contents 188. So the not My My Lords My Lords amendment 120 Baroness Jones not amendment 120 Baroness Jones not moved and amendment 121 Baroness Maclean of Redditch not moved and 121 a Baroness Jones also not moved. 121 B was withdrawn. 121 C the Earl 121 B was withdrawn. 121 C the Earl of Caithness moved.
And amendment 121D not moved. Thank you. 121 E
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. Was my intention, as I had signalled to call a vote on this amendment as the. I believed we would get significant support from
13:14
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
would get significant support from other parties, as I know I was going to get from the crossbenchers, but without that, I'm afraid I'm left in a position where I can do nothing but see, the children in England fail to get the support for their health and development through play that those in Wales and Scotland now enjoy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. The noble Lady has actually made a short speech to. I must, I'm afraid, just put it must, I'm afraid, just put it formally. Amendment proposed after clause 52. Insert the following new clause in the words as printed on the Marshall List. As many as that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Marshall List. As many as that content, Content. Content have it. In that case,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content have it. In that case, we move to 121 F Lord Blencathra we move to 121 F Lord Blencathra noble Lord. 121 G Baroness Neville-Rolfe not moved, apparently. 121 H from the supplementary sheet. 121 H from the supplementary sheet. Not moved. In that case, we call Not moved. In that case, we call 122, in the name of Lord Roborough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. The noble Lady has actually made a short speech to. I must, I'm afraid, just put it must, I'm afraid, just put it formally. Amendment proposed after clause 52. Insert the following new clause in the words as printed on the Marshall List. As many as that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Marshall List. As many as that content, Content. Content have it. In that case,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content have it. In that case, we move to 121 F Lord Blencathra we move to 121 F Lord Blencathra noble Lord. 121 G Baroness Neville-Rolfe not moved, apparently. 121 H from the supplementary sheet. 121 H from the supplementary sheet. Not moved. In that case, we call Not moved. In that case, we call 122, in the name of Lord Roborough.
13:15
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 122 and introduced amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments in this group are to propose alternative solutions to environmental blockages, to planning and development, either as replacements for part three of this bill or substantial improvement. To my mind, the most important amendment in this group and to part three of this bill is amendment 130, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have added my name both at committee stage and again at this report stage for transparency, I again refer the House to my register of interests as a farmer, forester, landowner, residential, commercial and renewable energy developer and also as a shareholder in various natural capital related businesses and partnerships.
I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister and also the noble Baroness, the Minister Lady Hayman who sadly is unwell today and we send her best wishes for their time during the passage of this bill and listening to our concerns. We do have fundamental objections to part three of this bill. Firstly, that it undermines the existing mitigation hierarchy and is a retrograde step in nature protection. Secondly, that it attacks the rural economy by giving Natural England's enhanced CPO powers without explicitly saying that the private sector should be engaged in delivery, as well as undermining nascent biodiversity net gain markets.
It gives little or no accountability by handing all of that responsibility to this arm's length body, Natural England. It would also appear highly unlikely that Natural England has the capacity to deliver the environmental delivery programmes as envisaged. Not only is no evidence that this will have any immediate benefit to the housebuilding sector, but after the CB fry decision by the Supreme Court last week, this part of the Bill reimposes habitat regulations on decisions related to Ramsar sites and immediately blocks tens of thousands of houses.
We also hear concerns from the industries that should stand to benefit from part three, that there is no visibility on the level of the nature restoration levy, and no control over outcomes of environmental delivery programmes and therefore reputational issues if they were to go wrong, the amendments and this and further groups will address these and other issues. However, there is a bigger question which I challenge the noble Baroness the Minister to answer. What exactly is part three designed to solve that cannot already be solved through existing structures and through more targeted tweaks to that system? As we and others propose, we ask this repeatedly in committee stage, and I don't yet feel I've had a satisfactory answer.
I think it would also be helpful to the House if there could be some comfort that the government is listening to our concerns, which are an echo of every interested wildlife and rural organisation outside this chamber. I'm grateful to all who have provided briefings and are simply too many to list. My Lords, amendment one, two, two is designed to force the Secretary of State to take final responsibility for the actions of Natural England, and to place parameters around that responsibility to provide greater protection to the rural economy, our food security and rural community and traditions.
We on these benches have a distrust of the supposedly independent arm's length bodies. And for that reason, we would like the Secretary of State to take this responsibility and be answerable to Parliament and the wider community for the performance of these EDPs could the noble Baroness, the Minister please tell us why the government does not want the Secretary of State to take this responsibility? Amendment 201 is a simple amendment that allows the Secretary of State to deal specifically with the nutrient neutrality issues that has been said to be blocking 160,000 new houses.
This is a repeat of our amendment that was defeated by Labour and Liberal Democrat benches in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. I have two questions that I have previously put forward to the government that have not yet been answered without this amendment, how many of those 160,000 blocked houses can be released immediately on Royal Assent? Secondly, how many houses will be reblocked by clause 90? Re-imposing habitat regulation restrictions on Ramsar sites beyond the 18,000 that have already been identified in the Somerset Levels, amendment 203 requires the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to publish a report on how to consolidate habitats, regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act to allow us to have a framework dealing specifically with nature protection.
In the UK, there have been news stories the government are considering a nature bill that would appear to be something in line with what we suggest. I asked the noble Baroness, the minister, whether that would not be the appropriate place to undertake such a far reaching re-evaluation of the protections that our natural environment deserves, rather than inner planning. Bill, my Lords, I will leave the introduction of amendment 130 to the noble Baroness Lady Willis, but I would just like to highlight the benefits we see in this amendment and approach and underline our support.
We hope that this approach will find favour with all benches, given it addresses so many of the concerns from different viewpoints. Nature and species would then not be put at risk. Should this amendment pass, CPO powers would be much less likely to be required for Natural England. The private sector would be the natural counterparty to achieve these aims. And finally, nutrient neutrality appears to be the key challenge from environmental considerations in planning, as emphasised by the Housebuilders Federation Federation in their briefing.
And Natural England could focus on this particular issue and increase their chances of success. We hope to hear a constructive response from the noble Baroness, the Minister to Amendment 130. We would like to hear that the government might accept the principle, at least, of limiting edps to these impacts until they are proven to work. We on these benches are a responsible opposition and would like to work in the manner with which this House works best to improve the bill and make it workable and successful in the real world.
The government's approach to date on part three does not give us full confidence that they are approaching this in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
same manner I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 53,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed clause 53, page 90, line 26. At the end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I want to speak to. 129. In this group.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this group. Which are in my name. But can I suggest the noble Lords. If they want.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To follow the purposes of these two amendments? Best to have a look at clause. 55.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Subsection one, since. These are. Essentially about understanding how the drafting is intended to how the drafting is intended to work and what that means in relation to the practices of an of
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 122 and introduced amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments in this group are to propose alternative solutions to environmental blockages, to planning and development, either as replacements for part three of this bill or substantial improvement. To my mind, the most important amendment in this group and to part three of this bill is amendment 130, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have added my name both at committee stage and again at this report stage for transparency, I again refer the House to my register of interests as a farmer, forester, landowner, residential, commercial and renewable energy developer and also as a shareholder in various natural capital related businesses and partnerships.
I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister and also the noble Baroness, the Minister Lady Hayman who sadly is unwell today and we send her best wishes for their time during the passage of this bill and listening to our concerns. We do have fundamental objections to part three of this bill. Firstly, that it undermines the existing mitigation hierarchy and is a retrograde step in nature protection. Secondly, that it attacks the rural economy by giving Natural England's enhanced CPO powers without explicitly saying that the private sector should be engaged in delivery, as well as undermining nascent biodiversity net gain markets.
It gives little or no accountability by handing all of that responsibility to this arm's length body, Natural England. It would also appear highly unlikely that Natural England has the capacity to deliver the environmental delivery programmes as envisaged. Not only is no evidence that this will have any immediate benefit to the housebuilding sector, but after the CB fry decision by the Supreme Court last week, this part of the Bill reimposes habitat regulations on decisions related to Ramsar sites and immediately blocks tens of thousands of houses.
We also hear concerns from the industries that should stand to benefit from part three, that there is no visibility on the level of the nature restoration levy, and no control over outcomes of environmental delivery programmes and therefore reputational issues if they were to go wrong, the amendments and this and further groups will address these and other issues. However, there is a bigger question which I challenge the noble Baroness the Minister to answer. What exactly is part three designed to solve that cannot already be solved through existing structures and through more targeted tweaks to that system? As we and others propose, we ask this repeatedly in committee stage, and I don't yet feel I've had a satisfactory answer.
I think it would also be helpful to the House if there could be some comfort that the government is listening to our concerns, which are an echo of every interested wildlife and rural organisation outside this chamber. I'm grateful to all who have provided briefings and are simply too many to list. My Lords, amendment one, two, two is designed to force the Secretary of State to take final responsibility for the actions of Natural England, and to place parameters around that responsibility to provide greater protection to the rural economy, our food security and rural community and traditions.
We on these benches have a distrust of the supposedly independent arm's length bodies. And for that reason, we would like the Secretary of State to take this responsibility and be answerable to Parliament and the wider community for the performance of these EDPs could the noble Baroness, the Minister please tell us why the government does not want the Secretary of State to take this responsibility? Amendment 201 is a simple amendment that allows the Secretary of State to deal specifically with the nutrient neutrality issues that has been said to be blocking 160,000 new houses.
This is a repeat of our amendment that was defeated by Labour and Liberal Democrat benches in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. I have two questions that I have previously put forward to the government that have not yet been answered without this amendment, how many of those 160,000 blocked houses can be released immediately on Royal Assent? Secondly, how many houses will be reblocked by clause 90? Re-imposing habitat regulation restrictions on Ramsar sites beyond the 18,000 that have already been identified in the Somerset Levels, amendment 203 requires the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to publish a report on how to consolidate habitats, regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act to allow us to have a framework dealing specifically with nature protection.
In the UK, there have been news stories the government are considering a nature bill that would appear to be something in line with what we suggest. I asked the noble Baroness, the minister, whether that would not be the appropriate place to undertake such a far reaching re-evaluation of the protections that our natural environment deserves, rather than inner planning. Bill, my Lords, I will leave the introduction of amendment 130 to the noble Baroness Lady Willis, but I would just like to highlight the benefits we see in this amendment and approach and underline our support.
We hope that this approach will find favour with all benches, given it addresses so many of the concerns from different viewpoints. Nature and species would then not be put at risk. Should this amendment pass, CPO powers would be much less likely to be required for Natural England. The private sector would be the natural counterparty to achieve these aims. And finally, nutrient neutrality appears to be the key challenge from environmental considerations in planning, as emphasised by the Housebuilders Federation Federation in their briefing.
And Natural England could focus on this particular issue and increase their chances of success. We hope to hear a constructive response from the noble Baroness, the Minister to Amendment 130. We would like to hear that the government might accept the principle, at least, of limiting edps to these impacts until they are proven to work. We on these benches are a responsible opposition and would like to work in the manner with which this House works best to improve the bill and make it workable and successful in the real world.
The government's approach to date on part three does not give us full confidence that they are approaching this in the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
same manner I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause 53,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed clause 53, page 90, line 26. At the end, insert the words as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I want to speak to. 129. In this group.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In this group. Which are in my name. But can I suggest the noble Lords. If they want.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To follow the purposes of these two amendments? Best to have a look at clause. 55.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Subsection one, since. These are. Essentially about understanding how the drafting is intended to how the drafting is intended to work and what that means in relation to the practices of an of
13:22
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
relation to the practices of an of an environmental delivery plan in due course. At committee. We had a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We had a. Useful. Probing debate. In relation. To. These issues to try. And. Understand whether.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All of the environmental. Impacts of a development should. Be identified.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In an environmental delivery plan. The debate then showed. That it was. Not the government's intention
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not the government's intention that an environmental delivery. Plan, or. An EDP for short, should identify all the environmental
**** Possible New Speaker ****
identify all the environmental impacts resulting from a development to which that EDP relates. Relevant in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This group is that, for example. The. EDP could. Focus on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A. Specific subset of environmental impacts or one or more impacts or one or more environmental impacts, such as on river quality or nutrient
**** Possible New Speaker ****
neutrality. So given that. That is the intention, and I'm not arguing with. The intention. Of the Bill in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The intention. Of the Bill in that respect, simply the drafting of this provision to give effect to that, how should that potential.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, how should that potential. Focus be reflected. In the. Structure of the power. For making.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Environmental delivery plan. Section 50.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
51A provides that the EDP will identify one or more.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Environmental features. An environmental feature. Is either. A protected. Feature of a protected site.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Feature of a protected site. Clause 93 can be seen for interpretation or a protected. Species. So to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Species. So to. Take an example, which I think is relevant, not least to the debate we are shortly to have on debate we are shortly to have on amendment 130, the. Effect of a development on a protected site, development on a protected site, such as through nutrient pollution arising from a development in, say, South Norfolk impact, which might impact on the nutrient level in the broads. That's a useful, I think, relevant example that that environmental impact could be the environment or the broads in that sense, the protected site and the nutrient level being the feature concerned could be the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
environmental feature to which the EDP relates. That being the case. If that is the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If that is the. Feature which is the subject of the EDP, should each of the ways in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the EDP, should each of the ways in which a negative effect on that feature arises. Be identified.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be identified. In the EDP? I think it should. Amendment 1 to 8 by changing one or more. So if. I if I could direct more. So if. I if I could direct the noble Lords to look at clause 55, subsection one b, where it says 55, subsection one b, where it says one or more ways in which in which one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development that defines the environmental impact.
defines the environmental impact. What I am proposing an amendment 1 to 8, is that we take out one or more. So that would read the ways more. So that would read the ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development, that being the development, that being the environmental impact. So that would preclude the possibility that there preclude the possibility that there may be ways in which the development causes the negative effect on that feature, but they effect on that feature, but they are omitted, since I do not understand why it would be at all reasonable for them to be omitted.
So that being the case, I'm hoping that the environmental impact is always defined by by reference to the ways in which a development impacts on a protected feature of a protected site or a protected species, and the focus can be narrow, which precise feature or it can be wide. The next line, however, if one looks still at clause 55, the next line after B in line 34 says, but an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature, so it feels a bit like we're Ministers have decided not only not necessarily to deal with all of the effects of a development they can focus down.
We've accepted that, but they definitely don't even need to explain to us in the EDP how the how the negative effects on a protected site or a protected feature of a site are to be understood and incorporated into the work of the EDP. So instead of saying taking that out. What I have chosen in amendment one two, nine is to define that a little more precisely. So give an example. If I mean why the government doing this? I think they're trying to say, let me jump back a minute.
I think they're trying to say we might be looking at an environmental feature, and that might be, for example, algal bloom in the water in the broads resulting from a change in the nutrient level. But what we want to do is to focus on the question, not of allowing things to be left out of account in the EDP because they are, they simply relate to that effect. But the point is, what we want to focus on is where the development gives rise to the effect.
So what amendment one, two, nine goes on to say is that after Baron EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature to add, unless they are environmental impacts expected to result directly from the development to which the EDP relates. And I hope that clarifies the purposes of the bill, which is to focus on in an EDP on the feature that is concerned and the specific ways in which a development might create a negative effect in relation to that feature that gives rise to the EDP.
So I'm sorry. I hope that makes clear what the amendments are intended to achieve. I'm hoping I'm hoping that what this does is in line with what the government's intentions are in relation to an environmental delivery plan, and that therefore amendments one, two eight and 129 from the government's point of view, do no harm to the purposes, and they would therefore be ones which, even if ministers are not immediately able to accept, they might reproduce something of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
kind. At Third Reading. My Lords, I rise to speak to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 130 in my. Name, and I thank the noble Baronesses Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
relation to the practices of an of an environmental delivery plan in due course. At committee. We had a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We had a. Useful. Probing debate. In relation. To. These issues to try. And. Understand whether.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
All of the environmental. Impacts of a development should. Be identified.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In an environmental delivery plan. The debate then showed. That it was. Not the government's intention
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not the government's intention that an environmental delivery. Plan, or. An EDP for short, should identify all the environmental
**** Possible New Speaker ****
identify all the environmental impacts resulting from a development to which that EDP relates. Relevant in.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This group is that, for example. The. EDP could. Focus on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A. Specific subset of environmental impacts or one or more impacts or one or more environmental impacts, such as on river quality or nutrient
**** Possible New Speaker ****
neutrality. So given that. That is the intention, and I'm not arguing with. The intention. Of the Bill in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The intention. Of the Bill in that respect, simply the drafting of this provision to give effect to that, how should that potential.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that, how should that potential. Focus be reflected. In the. Structure of the power. For making.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Environmental delivery plan. Section 50.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
51A provides that the EDP will identify one or more.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Environmental features. An environmental feature. Is either. A protected. Feature of a protected site.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Feature of a protected site. Clause 93 can be seen for interpretation or a protected. Species. So to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Species. So to. Take an example, which I think is relevant, not least to the debate we are shortly to have on debate we are shortly to have on amendment 130, the. Effect of a development on a protected site, development on a protected site, such as through nutrient pollution arising from a development in, say, South Norfolk impact, which might impact on the nutrient level in the broads. That's a useful, I think, relevant example that that environmental impact could be the environment or the broads in that sense, the protected site and the nutrient level being the feature concerned could be the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
environmental feature to which the EDP relates. That being the case. If that is the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If that is the. Feature which is the subject of the EDP, should each of the ways in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the EDP, should each of the ways in which a negative effect on that feature arises. Be identified.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be identified. In the EDP? I think it should. Amendment 1 to 8 by changing one or more. So if. I if I could direct more. So if. I if I could direct the noble Lords to look at clause 55, subsection one b, where it says 55, subsection one b, where it says one or more ways in which in which one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development that defines the environmental impact.
defines the environmental impact. What I am proposing an amendment 1 to 8, is that we take out one or more. So that would read the ways more. So that would read the ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development, that being the development, that being the environmental impact. So that would preclude the possibility that there preclude the possibility that there may be ways in which the development causes the negative effect on that feature, but they effect on that feature, but they are omitted, since I do not understand why it would be at all reasonable for them to be omitted.
So that being the case, I'm hoping that the environmental impact is always defined by by reference to the ways in which a development impacts on a protected feature of a protected site or a protected species, and the focus can be narrow, which precise feature or it can be wide. The next line, however, if one looks still at clause 55, the next line after B in line 34 says, but an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature, so it feels a bit like we're Ministers have decided not only not necessarily to deal with all of the effects of a development they can focus down.
We've accepted that, but they definitely don't even need to explain to us in the EDP how the how the negative effects on a protected site or a protected feature of a site are to be understood and incorporated into the work of the EDP. So instead of saying taking that out. What I have chosen in amendment one two, nine is to define that a little more precisely. So give an example. If I mean why the government doing this? I think they're trying to say, let me jump back a minute.
I think they're trying to say we might be looking at an environmental feature, and that might be, for example, algal bloom in the water in the broads resulting from a change in the nutrient level. But what we want to do is to focus on the question, not of allowing things to be left out of account in the EDP because they are, they simply relate to that effect. But the point is, what we want to focus on is where the development gives rise to the effect.
So what amendment one, two, nine goes on to say is that after Baron EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature to add, unless they are environmental impacts expected to result directly from the development to which the EDP relates. And I hope that clarifies the purposes of the bill, which is to focus on in an EDP on the feature that is concerned and the specific ways in which a development might create a negative effect in relation to that feature that gives rise to the EDP.
So I'm sorry. I hope that makes clear what the amendments are intended to achieve. I'm hoping I'm hoping that what this does is in line with what the government's intentions are in relation to an environmental delivery plan, and that therefore amendments one, two eight and 129 from the government's point of view, do no harm to the purposes, and they would therefore be ones which, even if ministers are not immediately able to accept, they might reproduce something of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
kind. At Third Reading. My Lords, I rise to speak to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 130 in my. Name, and I thank the noble Baronesses Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord
13:29
Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Willis of Summertown (Crossbench)
Lady Grender, and the noble Lord Lord Roborough for their support. So when preparing this speech, I went back to remind myself of the core objectives of this bill, which were to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. And as part of this, simplifying the process by which we address impacts to the natural environment. But I would argue what we have before us is a further layer of potential bureaucracy. I say this because if the bill passes as it is, and this has been confirmed in the other place, but also in this House, developers will actually have to take on an additional layer of assessment.
So they will now need to do an environmental impact assessment, a habitats regulation, a biodiversity net gain assessment, and then and then apply for an EDP for specific features. So this and then before they even pay into this nature restoration fund, I really struggle to see how that streamlines the process for developers. And I really would be very grateful if the noble Lady, the Minister could tell us how this does actually speed this process up.
But I'm also concerned about the whole question about the environment. So we have this situation where, despite the noble Lady of the minister saying that the government would ensure EDPs are only used where they can be shown to deliver for the environment, no one, developers or conservationists know what features EDPs will apply to. And so from the perspective of halting and restoring biodiversity, the situation is exacerbated by this fact that the mitigation hierarchy will not apply to EDPs. And of course, that causes all the concerns that are being debated in later groups.
It's not just me saying this. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, for example, said that the sweeping approach proposed in part three is causing considerable uncertainty for developers as to which environmental areas EDP will be applied. So, my Lords, I'm trying to I'm trying to try and find a solution here, both for developers and for nature in my amendment. 130 by going back to the basics and saying, OK, which features are there that are really causing the blockages to developers? Now, the much maligned Bat is not one of them.
It was responsible for just 0.8% of planning refusals, which were appealed in 2024. But it's from discussions from many, many housebuilding associations. It would appear that the main causes that are causing this, this, this blockage are nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. And so why should we just not put those into this and say, these are the ones we're going to focus on, and these are the ones that should be in this bill. And if I can just give you one example where we know this already works, and that's 95% of the 16,000 new homes around the Solent that were delayed by nutrient neutrality rules have now been given the go ahead.
They're being built due to a local strategic mitigation scheme, which meant that we didn't get the pollution, the Solent catchment, and it was a win for buildings and it was a win for nature. It does work. We just have to take the things that work and build on them, not keep trying to unpick all the systems we have already and make it even more complicated for developers. So it's not insurmountable. But this is why 130 was put, I've put forward this amendment, and because I think there is a strong case that it will both speed up the planning process, a core objective of the bill, but also deliver for the environment another core objective or a core drive that the government has committed to.
So I think we really do need to look very seriously at this amendment, and I hope the Lords support me in this, because I think that we will, instead of bringing a whole new, yet another system that the developers have to jump through another hoop, that we actually come up with something that's going to work for both parties. So I do look forward to the noble Lord the minister's reply on this. But if the response does not address the issues, which are very much in line with this bill and the nature of the bill, and being good for both development nature, then I will reserve the right to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I stand up to speak in the name of my amendment 132 and do name of my amendment 132 and do that fully in support of the intention. What Baroness Willis is trying to do, which is trying not trying to do, which is trying not to add another layer to what we would all hope would be a streamlined process. And what I was
So they will now need to do an environmental impact assessment, a habitats regulation, a biodiversity net gain assessment, and then and then apply for an EDP for specific features. So this and then before they even pay into this nature restoration fund, I really struggle to see how that streamlines the process for developers. And I really would be very grateful if the noble Lady, the Minister could tell us how this does actually speed this process up.
But I'm also concerned about the whole question about the environment. So we have this situation where, despite the noble Lady of the minister saying that the government would ensure EDPs are only used where they can be shown to deliver for the environment, no one, developers or conservationists know what features EDPs will apply to. And so from the perspective of halting and restoring biodiversity, the situation is exacerbated by this fact that the mitigation hierarchy will not apply to EDPs. And of course, that causes all the concerns that are being debated in later groups.
It's not just me saying this. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, for example, said that the sweeping approach proposed in part three is causing considerable uncertainty for developers as to which environmental areas EDP will be applied. So, my Lords, I'm trying to I'm trying to try and find a solution here, both for developers and for nature in my amendment. 130 by going back to the basics and saying, OK, which features are there that are really causing the blockages to developers? Now, the much maligned Bat is not one of them.
It was responsible for just 0.8% of planning refusals, which were appealed in 2024. But it's from discussions from many, many housebuilding associations. It would appear that the main causes that are causing this, this, this blockage are nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. And so why should we just not put those into this and say, these are the ones we're going to focus on, and these are the ones that should be in this bill. And if I can just give you one example where we know this already works, and that's 95% of the 16,000 new homes around the Solent that were delayed by nutrient neutrality rules have now been given the go ahead.
They're being built due to a local strategic mitigation scheme, which meant that we didn't get the pollution, the Solent catchment, and it was a win for buildings and it was a win for nature. It does work. We just have to take the things that work and build on them, not keep trying to unpick all the systems we have already and make it even more complicated for developers. So it's not insurmountable. But this is why 130 was put, I've put forward this amendment, and because I think there is a strong case that it will both speed up the planning process, a core objective of the bill, but also deliver for the environment another core objective or a core drive that the government has committed to.
So I think we really do need to look very seriously at this amendment, and I hope the Lords support me in this, because I think that we will, instead of bringing a whole new, yet another system that the developers have to jump through another hoop, that we actually come up with something that's going to work for both parties. So I do look forward to the noble Lord the minister's reply on this. But if the response does not address the issues, which are very much in line with this bill and the nature of the bill, and being good for both development nature, then I will reserve the right to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So I stand up to speak in the name of my amendment 132 and do name of my amendment 132 and do that fully in support of the intention. What Baroness Willis is trying to do, which is trying not trying to do, which is trying not to add another layer to what we would all hope would be a streamlined process. And what I was
13:34
Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Markham (Conservative)
streamlined process. And what I was trying to do in this is really just make a very simple point and that of proportionality, so that where there is an environmental assessment, then there should be some sort of indication as to how reasonable is that cost within at all. And we all know very famously, of course, the £100 million high speed two bat tunnel story. What we don't know is what was the cost of per bat saved in all of that. But what I am very, very familiar with as a former health minister is that in the health space, we are asked these questions all the time.
Which medicines should we approve? And we have a process for this called nice and nice very explicitly puts the value of a human life at somewhere between 20 to £30,000 a year in terms of a qualified adjusted life year, and will approve medicines if it comes, you know, if it costs less than that and will explicitly say that we can't afford a a medicine on the NHS if it comes above that. So they are explicitly putting a value on a year of a human's life.
And that leads to difficult discussions and difficult conversations and analysis, where you're saying to people that unfortunately, the state is not going to pay for this type of medicine, even though it might be life saving. So we've actually put a value on a human life in that, and we've made that open to public debate. And so I think we should be having a similar reference point when we're talking about an environmental impact in terms of a life of a bat or some other species, and we should be having reference to the value that we're putting on a human life.
So I'm interested in the views of the noble Lady, the minister on this, in terms of what we can learn from the nice debate in terms of proportionality, to make sure that we're not valuing the life of a bat so much higher than the life of a human.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord I. I rise to support the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to support the amendment 130 in the name of the Lady Willis of Summertown, supported by those of Summertown, supported by those champions of nature, Lord Roborough, Baroness, young and Baroness Grender. And I only wish I could
Which medicines should we approve? And we have a process for this called nice and nice very explicitly puts the value of a human life at somewhere between 20 to £30,000 a year in terms of a qualified adjusted life year, and will approve medicines if it comes, you know, if it costs less than that and will explicitly say that we can't afford a a medicine on the NHS if it comes above that. So they are explicitly putting a value on a year of a human's life.
And that leads to difficult discussions and difficult conversations and analysis, where you're saying to people that unfortunately, the state is not going to pay for this type of medicine, even though it might be life saving. So we've actually put a value on a human life in that, and we've made that open to public debate. And so I think we should be having a similar reference point when we're talking about an environmental impact in terms of a life of a bat or some other species, and we should be having reference to the value that we're putting on a human life.
So I'm interested in the views of the noble Lady, the minister on this, in terms of what we can learn from the nice debate in terms of proportionality, to make sure that we're not valuing the life of a bat so much higher than the life of a human.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord I. I rise to support the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to support the amendment 130 in the name of the Lady Willis of Summertown, supported by those of Summertown, supported by those champions of nature, Lord Roborough, Baroness, young and Baroness Grender. And I only wish I could
13:36
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
Grender. And I only wish I could have signed it myself. It is. I'm not particularly interested in making things easier for developers. Streamlining their processes is not my primary aim, but I do agree very strongly with the issues listed in 130, which are nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource and air quality. These are issues that humans need for health. All of our concerns in part three, which have been supported by quite a lot of organisations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Bat Conservation Trust, the Better Planning Coalition, Wildlife Trusts, the Royal Society.
All of these organisations have raised concerns. Just as we here in your Lordships House have, and I think that our concerns and our amendments into in part three are a demonstration of how much we don't trust this government to care about the countryside, nature, wildlife and human well-being. I trusted some in the last government to protect the countryside because they own so much of it, and they probably had its interests at heart and in their wallets. But many, many in this government clearly prefer bulldozers to bats and beavers.
And that to me, immediately signals we have a problem with this government. Labour has been disappointing on nature, on the environment, on climate change. They do occasionally talk about it, but they don't understand it. And that's a source of real anxiety to me. I've got no trust in this government doing the right thing to protect nature. They are opposing a series of very moderate, very sensible suggestions to make our planning system more nature friendly. And when I say nature friendly, I mean human friendly as well.
Nature. We are nothing without nature. We need nature very badly. But Labour has rejected the most minor of measures, for example, over swift bricks in new buildings. They said no to the most basic protections of our precious and rare chalk streams, and failed to do the most obvious things, like stopping developers from attaching new buildings to already overloaded sewage systems. So if the noble Lady Lady Willis decides to put this amendment to the vote, we here on the green Bench benches will support her very strongly here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here Lords I put my. Name to amendment 122.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the name of my noble friend. Lord Robert, because I think it's important that guidance is it's important that guidance is issued to Natural England on a number of issues that are going to
All of these organisations have raised concerns. Just as we here in your Lordships House have, and I think that our concerns and our amendments into in part three are a demonstration of how much we don't trust this government to care about the countryside, nature, wildlife and human well-being. I trusted some in the last government to protect the countryside because they own so much of it, and they probably had its interests at heart and in their wallets. But many, many in this government clearly prefer bulldozers to bats and beavers.
And that to me, immediately signals we have a problem with this government. Labour has been disappointing on nature, on the environment, on climate change. They do occasionally talk about it, but they don't understand it. And that's a source of real anxiety to me. I've got no trust in this government doing the right thing to protect nature. They are opposing a series of very moderate, very sensible suggestions to make our planning system more nature friendly. And when I say nature friendly, I mean human friendly as well.
Nature. We are nothing without nature. We need nature very badly. But Labour has rejected the most minor of measures, for example, over swift bricks in new buildings. They said no to the most basic protections of our precious and rare chalk streams, and failed to do the most obvious things, like stopping developers from attaching new buildings to already overloaded sewage systems. So if the noble Lady Lady Willis decides to put this amendment to the vote, we here on the green Bench benches will support her very strongly here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Here Lords I put my. Name to amendment 122.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In the name of my noble friend. Lord Robert, because I think it's important that guidance is it's important that guidance is issued to Natural England on a number of issues that are going to
13:39
The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
number of issues that are going to be relevant. In particular, I. Was very keen on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Was very keen on. Subsection six. D needed to define the proposed conservation measures relating. To an.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
measures relating. To an. EDP during the. Pre-consultation period, and to seek expressions of interest from the appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them. My Lords, it is a hugely important that the private
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sector is involved. And I hear. Good words from Natural England
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Good words from Natural England about getting on with farmers and trying to work with the private sector. The results, when you look
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sector. The results, when you look at them are absolutely appalling and the private sector. Is very fed up with Natural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is very fed up with Natural England. It rather echoes. The point of the. Noble Baroness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The point of the. Noble Baroness. The germs of Molluscum, who said that those of us that are. Keen on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Preserving and improving the countryside and biodiversity are very disappointed with the Labour government as to how it's behaved in stark contrast to what they said when they were in opposition a few
**** Possible New Speaker ****
months ago. And where they. Will be again in a few years time. And then there will be back time. And then there will be back in favour of the countryside. I like very much amendment 130.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
like very much amendment 130. In the name of noble Lady Baroness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness. Willis, and I hope she presses that. Very briefly. Given the time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given the time. To support amendment 130 proposed by the noble Lady Baroness Willis. And this is because I went Willis. And this is because I went to some of the briefings that were very useful on how EDPs were going to be prepared, and a couple of
The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
number of issues that are going to be relevant. In particular, I. Was very keen on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Was very keen on. Subsection six. D needed to define the proposed conservation measures relating. To an.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
measures relating. To an. EDP during the. Pre-consultation period, and to seek expressions of interest from the appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them. My Lords, it is a hugely important that the private
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sector is involved. And I hear. Good words from Natural England
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Good words from Natural England about getting on with farmers and trying to work with the private sector. The results, when you look
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sector. The results, when you look at them are absolutely appalling and the private sector. Is very fed up with Natural
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is very fed up with Natural England. It rather echoes. The point of the. Noble Baroness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The point of the. Noble Baroness. The germs of Molluscum, who said that those of us that are. Keen on.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Preserving and improving the countryside and biodiversity are very disappointed with the Labour government as to how it's behaved in stark contrast to what they said when they were in opposition a few
**** Possible New Speaker ****
months ago. And where they. Will be again in a few years time. And then there will be back time. And then there will be back in favour of the countryside. I like very much amendment 130.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
like very much amendment 130. In the name of noble Lady Baroness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness. Willis, and I hope she presses that. Very briefly. Given the time.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given the time. To support amendment 130 proposed by the noble Lady Baroness Willis. And this is because I went Willis. And this is because I went to some of the briefings that were very useful on how EDPs were going to be prepared, and a couple of
13:42
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
things stood out to me. One is that Natural England proposed to base their EDP preparations on modelling their EDP preparations on modelling much more than actual monitoring and measuring on the ground, and not requiring demonstration of the success of the EDPs before destruction of habitats is allowed, and the other is the. Given the voluntary nature of the proposal, so that the scale of the conservation measures will expand conservation measures will expand or contract in proportion to how much is actually paid into the relevant restoration fund.
Well, my Lords, relying on modelling is is hard, I think, when it comes to hard, I think, when it comes to species modelling physics, like the flow of nutrients or spread of air pollution is complex, but it's pollution is complex, but it's nothing like as complex as modelling ecology and we can measure for the presence or absence of chemicals much more easily and reliably than for species. And models are only as good as the data models are only as good as the data you base them on, and we just don't have the biological records to support really precise and accurate support really precise and accurate modelling.
And I would cite the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management who say Environmental Management who say that, but it should be noted that biodiversity data sets are, by their nature, incomplete. Access to their nature, incomplete. Access to private land to collect such information is frequently difficult or impossible. Just imagine how much private land has never been properly surveyed, even for notable species. And then my second concern the scalability of EDPs depending on the money paid in. When we heard from experts at the briefing for peers, it became clear, I think, that the intention is that if only a few developers paid to use an EDP, then the provisions would be scaled accordingly.
But my Lords that relies on the fact that the ecological requirements, and therefore the benefits, would all scale by the same proportion as well as the money. And I think that's very unlikely to be true. Ecology doesn't scale linearly. If you halve the size of a habitat, you degrade it by more than half, and often you hit thresholds below which things aren't viable. And that's one of the reasons why this kind of strategic joined up planning can help. But the lack of detail on exactly how this will work makes me fear that they've not been fully thought through.
So all in all, I think that using EDPs as I understand them to be planned to work for species seems very risky to try to undertake, because the consequences of us being wrong are so high. By the time that we know something might not be working, it'll be too late to do anything about it, because we'll have lost the habitat and the animals and plants within it, whilst restricting EDPs to physical modelling, where we can have a lot more confidence in our accuracy and precision and scalability, seems to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
progress. My Lords very briefly. I declare. My interests as.
Well, my Lords, relying on modelling is is hard, I think, when it comes to hard, I think, when it comes to species modelling physics, like the flow of nutrients or spread of air pollution is complex, but it's pollution is complex, but it's nothing like as complex as modelling ecology and we can measure for the presence or absence of chemicals much more easily and reliably than for species. And models are only as good as the data models are only as good as the data you base them on, and we just don't have the biological records to support really precise and accurate support really precise and accurate modelling.
And I would cite the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management who say Environmental Management who say that, but it should be noted that biodiversity data sets are, by their nature, incomplete. Access to their nature, incomplete. Access to private land to collect such information is frequently difficult or impossible. Just imagine how much private land has never been properly surveyed, even for notable species. And then my second concern the scalability of EDPs depending on the money paid in. When we heard from experts at the briefing for peers, it became clear, I think, that the intention is that if only a few developers paid to use an EDP, then the provisions would be scaled accordingly.
But my Lords that relies on the fact that the ecological requirements, and therefore the benefits, would all scale by the same proportion as well as the money. And I think that's very unlikely to be true. Ecology doesn't scale linearly. If you halve the size of a habitat, you degrade it by more than half, and often you hit thresholds below which things aren't viable. And that's one of the reasons why this kind of strategic joined up planning can help. But the lack of detail on exactly how this will work makes me fear that they've not been fully thought through.
So all in all, I think that using EDPs as I understand them to be planned to work for species seems very risky to try to undertake, because the consequences of us being wrong are so high. By the time that we know something might not be working, it'll be too late to do anything about it, because we'll have lost the habitat and the animals and plants within it, whilst restricting EDPs to physical modelling, where we can have a lot more confidence in our accuracy and precision and scalability, seems to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
progress. My Lords very briefly. I declare. My interests as.
13:44
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My interests as. A director of the family. Farming company. I'm not going to make. A long speech.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A long speech. I looked at my notes against. Amendment 122. Which I. Think is. A. Very important amendment. And my notes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And my notes. Read guidance. Simply needed to stop the commissars of Natural England running amok. And I think that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I think that. Probably covers it to ensure clearer definitions, parameters and accountability. As the noble Lord Lord Roborough so eloquently outlined, and also the potential abuse of compulsory purchase. I'll say no more on that amendment. The vital amendment here is also number 130, and I would say 201, which focus on clarity, deliverability and the efficiency of the EDP process. And I would also like to support 128 and 129 by the noble Earl Lord Lansley, who once again is seeking to make specificity the hallmark rather than generality and vagueness in the construction of EDPs.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
One Lord. Lord can I support 130 in the name of the noble Baroness in the name of the noble Baroness Baroness Willis, who laid out very eloquently the case? I think eloquently the case? I think amendment 130 is a rather elegant solution to the tensions over part three. And there are undoubted
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My interests as. A director of the family. Farming company. I'm not going to make. A long speech.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A long speech. I looked at my notes against. Amendment 122. Which I. Think is. A. Very important amendment. And my notes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And my notes. Read guidance. Simply needed to stop the commissars of Natural England running amok. And I think that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I think that. Probably covers it to ensure clearer definitions, parameters and accountability. As the noble Lord Lord Roborough so eloquently outlined, and also the potential abuse of compulsory purchase. I'll say no more on that amendment. The vital amendment here is also number 130, and I would say 201, which focus on clarity, deliverability and the efficiency of the EDP process. And I would also like to support 128 and 129 by the noble Earl Lord Lansley, who once again is seeking to make specificity the hallmark rather than generality and vagueness in the construction of EDPs.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
One Lord. Lord can I support 130 in the name of the noble Baroness in the name of the noble Baroness Baroness Willis, who laid out very eloquently the case? I think eloquently the case? I think amendment 130 is a rather elegant solution to the tensions over part three. And there are undoubted
13:45
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
three. And there are undoubted tensions not only here in the chamber, but out there in the country. EDPs confining EDPs only to those issues that the EDP process lends itself to, which are best resolved in a strategic landscape. Scale. Those issues of nutrient neutrality and water quality issues, water resources and air quality would deliver multiple benefits. Firstly, it would resolve the principal obstacles identified by developers that they say are getting in the way of development. These are the primary ones that they're concerned about.
Secondly, it would reassure developers who are worried about the the damage to their reputation that this part of the bill is now being increasingly seen by developers as potentially damaging for responsible developers. Thirdly, it it would reduce or remove the chilling effect that the proposed legislation has already had on private sector habitat and species market based schemes that are Lord Roborough expressed concern about. Fourthly, it would enable Natural England to cut its teeth on a manageable number of IDPs, meeting the most important barriers to development without overwhelming and overstretching it.
Valuable experience would be gained which could be used in any future extension of the EDP process. And it would mean that we would move forward in a in a calm and rational fashion. Fifthly, Earl Howe EDPs is dealing with the issues that most lend themselves to. This approach would allow for a considered judgement as to whether this complex new process indeed speeds up planning for developers. Many commentators have judged EDPs to be yet another layer of considerable complexity, with developers still having to deal with the features not covered by the EDP using the current and established habitat regulations processes, the Minister very kindly arranged for me to sit down with staff from Natural England.
They worked through with me the steps in the new EDP process, including gathering of evidence, development of the EDP, calculation of the levy, recruitment of partners for delivery, acquisition of land if necessary, including, in rare instances, compulsory purchase consultation process. Submission to the Secretary of State for the improvement test. Publication of the EDP. Application of planning requirements for the developer and then implementation, including any features of the EDP that were necessary before the developer could develop. This is not a simple or short process, and it would be useful if the Minister could give the House an idea as to the approximate elapsed time envisaged from a twinkle in somebody's eye, that an EDP might be an option to the developer actually being able to put houses on the ground.
There is one further issue that I don't think has been raised previously in the House that this amendment would resolve, and that is the anxiety that still held by the office for Environmental Protection. On the regressive nature of part three, though they have said grudgingly that the government amendments have helped, they have still lingering concerns, and this is a concern that's now been beginning to be shared by the European Commission in the context of the EU UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
So could the noble Lady say whether she's aware of this concern that's now arising in terms of our ongoing relationship and the wish to develop an effective relationship with a major trading partner? So I hope that with these amendments, with these benefits of the amendment laid out, that the Minister might accept that this rather elegant amendment commands broad support around the House. It certainly commands support from a range of organisations, including the sustainability directors. May I say of many of the large responsible developers.
And it would be simple, a simple way of achieving the government's aim of development and environment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protection, not simply development. My Lords I. Very much.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very much. Support amendment 130. It seems to be absolutely crucial that we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
get this system to a point where developers. See EDP. As something they.
Secondly, it would reassure developers who are worried about the the damage to their reputation that this part of the bill is now being increasingly seen by developers as potentially damaging for responsible developers. Thirdly, it it would reduce or remove the chilling effect that the proposed legislation has already had on private sector habitat and species market based schemes that are Lord Roborough expressed concern about. Fourthly, it would enable Natural England to cut its teeth on a manageable number of IDPs, meeting the most important barriers to development without overwhelming and overstretching it.
Valuable experience would be gained which could be used in any future extension of the EDP process. And it would mean that we would move forward in a in a calm and rational fashion. Fifthly, Earl Howe EDPs is dealing with the issues that most lend themselves to. This approach would allow for a considered judgement as to whether this complex new process indeed speeds up planning for developers. Many commentators have judged EDPs to be yet another layer of considerable complexity, with developers still having to deal with the features not covered by the EDP using the current and established habitat regulations processes, the Minister very kindly arranged for me to sit down with staff from Natural England.
They worked through with me the steps in the new EDP process, including gathering of evidence, development of the EDP, calculation of the levy, recruitment of partners for delivery, acquisition of land if necessary, including, in rare instances, compulsory purchase consultation process. Submission to the Secretary of State for the improvement test. Publication of the EDP. Application of planning requirements for the developer and then implementation, including any features of the EDP that were necessary before the developer could develop. This is not a simple or short process, and it would be useful if the Minister could give the House an idea as to the approximate elapsed time envisaged from a twinkle in somebody's eye, that an EDP might be an option to the developer actually being able to put houses on the ground.
There is one further issue that I don't think has been raised previously in the House that this amendment would resolve, and that is the anxiety that still held by the office for Environmental Protection. On the regressive nature of part three, though they have said grudgingly that the government amendments have helped, they have still lingering concerns, and this is a concern that's now been beginning to be shared by the European Commission in the context of the EU UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
So could the noble Lady say whether she's aware of this concern that's now arising in terms of our ongoing relationship and the wish to develop an effective relationship with a major trading partner? So I hope that with these amendments, with these benefits of the amendment laid out, that the Minister might accept that this rather elegant amendment commands broad support around the House. It certainly commands support from a range of organisations, including the sustainability directors. May I say of many of the large responsible developers.
And it would be simple, a simple way of achieving the government's aim of development and environment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
protection, not simply development. My Lords I. Very much.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very much. Support amendment 130. It seems to be absolutely crucial that we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
get this system to a point where developers. See EDP. As something they.
13:50
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can live with. At the moment. I evidenced in a meeting which the noble Baroness minister very kindly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Allowed me, they very. Clearly don't. They see this as a huge additional complication which will slow down development which will slow down development enormously. And I'm very much support what the noble Baroness Lady Freeman said. No one who's ever tried to manage a garden would think you can model biological processes out in the wild. It's just yes you can. You can model the watering of garden, but you cannot model what the plants are going to do. It absolutely requires observations on the ground.
Natural England are not going down a rope that will work in that. And this really brings me to amendment 122. I was on the front bench for MAFF when most of that department's business was run through the EU. If you don't have control of what's happening in your own department, it produces a dysfunctional
**** Possible New Speaker ****
political process. You can't respond to what people are saying from outside it. You can't even.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You can't even. Influence what's happening internally in the department that that the department should. Be doing this to itself.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be doing this to itself. That it should be offshoring so much of its or ensuring so much of much of its or ensuring so much of its business to an unaccountable as we've seen from Batangas, there's nothing you can do with Natural nothing you can do with Natural England when it goes down wrong. You can't just pick up the phone to them and say, come on, be sensible
**** Possible New Speaker ****
them and say, come on, be sensible we're. Doing is. Producing an unstable political
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Producing an unstable political situation which will have to be unwound. That's not created.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
unwound. That's not created. Given time is short, I will contain our remarks to the standout amendment in this grouping, which amendment in this grouping, which is 130 Lady Lea by the noble Baroness Willis of Summertown, Baroness Willis of Summertown, because it seems to it's a means to address what is the sort of the
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can live with. At the moment. I evidenced in a meeting which the noble Baroness minister very kindly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Allowed me, they very. Clearly don't. They see this as a huge additional complication which will slow down development which will slow down development enormously. And I'm very much support what the noble Baroness Lady Freeman said. No one who's ever tried to manage a garden would think you can model biological processes out in the wild. It's just yes you can. You can model the watering of garden, but you cannot model what the plants are going to do. It absolutely requires observations on the ground.
Natural England are not going down a rope that will work in that. And this really brings me to amendment 122. I was on the front bench for MAFF when most of that department's business was run through the EU. If you don't have control of what's happening in your own department, it produces a dysfunctional
**** Possible New Speaker ****
political process. You can't respond to what people are saying from outside it. You can't even.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
You can't even. Influence what's happening internally in the department that that the department should. Be doing this to itself.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be doing this to itself. That it should be offshoring so much of its or ensuring so much of much of its or ensuring so much of its business to an unaccountable as we've seen from Batangas, there's nothing you can do with Natural nothing you can do with Natural England when it goes down wrong. You can't just pick up the phone to them and say, come on, be sensible
**** Possible New Speaker ****
them and say, come on, be sensible we're. Doing is. Producing an unstable political
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Producing an unstable political situation which will have to be unwound. That's not created.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
unwound. That's not created. Given time is short, I will contain our remarks to the standout amendment in this grouping, which amendment in this grouping, which is 130 Lady Lea by the noble Baroness Willis of Summertown, Baroness Willis of Summertown, because it seems to it's a means to address what is the sort of the
13:51
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
fundamental question we all have in this bill, which is how do we actually help the government to deliver the win win for nature and the economy by both giving the developers the certainty about this new process, given we're moving away from an established process which has served us for many, many years, whilst at the same time ensuring that the environmental protections that we want are locked in, and the approach that the noble Baroness has taken is to curtail the scope of this new process by saying that it can.
Only an EDP can only happen where it has been shown that those approaches will work, benefiting conservation at the strategic landscape scale. I have to say, we as Liberal Democrats thought long and hard about supporting this amendment because it is our contention that we should always follow the science and therefore, if there were to be the evidence from the scientific consideration of the scientific evidence, the of that, that there could be conservation benefits shown to, for example, species, then it would normally be our position that we would support that.
And therefore this approach to curtail it by area rather than the evidence is not one we would normally support. But as you will see after that, thinking long and hard, we did put our front bench name to this amendment, and the reason for that is that we are not convinced at this stage, at this point in the debate, that there are sufficient safeguards about how that scientific evidence will be considered by Natural England so as to ensure that the environmental safeguards that we all want are going to be in place.
And so therefore, we on these benches will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say in response to this amendment. But if the noble Baroness is minded to move to a vote on this, at this point in time, we would support her.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, the usual channels have agreed. We should pause now to allow for a short break before oral allow for a short break before oral questions at 3:00 pm. Whilst unusual, I therefore beg to move that the debate on this amendment that the debate on this amendment be adjourned and we will return to it later this afternoon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question is that amendment on amendment 1 to 2 be now adjourned, as many as that have been, say
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as many as that have been, say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Back to move that further
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Back to move that further consideration on report. Be adjourned. Question is that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m. As many as that opinion will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Adjourned during pleasure until
**** Possible New Speaker ****
3 p.m. All right. I think that is already dealt
Only an EDP can only happen where it has been shown that those approaches will work, benefiting conservation at the strategic landscape scale. I have to say, we as Liberal Democrats thought long and hard about supporting this amendment because it is our contention that we should always follow the science and therefore, if there were to be the evidence from the scientific consideration of the scientific evidence, the of that, that there could be conservation benefits shown to, for example, species, then it would normally be our position that we would support that.
And therefore this approach to curtail it by area rather than the evidence is not one we would normally support. But as you will see after that, thinking long and hard, we did put our front bench name to this amendment, and the reason for that is that we are not convinced at this stage, at this point in the debate, that there are sufficient safeguards about how that scientific evidence will be considered by Natural England so as to ensure that the environmental safeguards that we all want are going to be in place.
And so therefore, we on these benches will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say in response to this amendment. But if the noble Baroness is minded to move to a vote on this, at this point in time, we would support her.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, the usual channels have agreed. We should pause now to allow for a short break before oral allow for a short break before oral questions at 3:00 pm. Whilst unusual, I therefore beg to move that the debate on this amendment that the debate on this amendment be adjourned and we will return to it later this afternoon.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question is that amendment on amendment 1 to 2 be now adjourned, as many as that have been, say
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as many as that have been, say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Back to move that further
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Back to move that further consideration on report. Be adjourned. Question is that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m. As many as that opinion will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Adjourned during pleasure until
**** Possible New Speaker ****
3 p.m. All right. I think that is already dealt
15:01
Oral questions: UK-EU youth mobility scheme
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Oral questions: UK-EU youth mobility scheme
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:01
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Order Paper. My Lords, we are working towards the establishment of a balanced Youth Experience scheme with the EU. Youth Experience scheme with the EU. We have agreed that any scheme will be subject to an allotted number of places, subject to a visa requirement and time limited. We requirement and time limited. We have also been clear that it should be in line with the UK's existing schemes. The exact parameters will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the Order Paper. My Lords, we are working towards the establishment of a balanced Youth Experience scheme with the EU. Youth Experience scheme with the EU. We have agreed that any scheme will be subject to an allotted number of places, subject to a visa requirement and time limited. We requirement and time limited. We have also been clear that it should be in line with the UK's existing schemes. The exact parameters will
15:01
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
schemes. The exact parameters will be subject to discussion and negotiations which are under way. My Lords will understand that I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
negotiations. My Lords, this question is a companion piece to Baroness companion piece to Baroness Coussins question last week on Erasmus, to which he got an encouraging reply. The only proviso encouraging reply. The only proviso here, of course, is were we in the single market, which most voters now back, a youth mobility scheme now back, a youth mobility scheme would be entirely unnecessary. So I ask the minister, considering young British people, particularly from British people, particularly from privileged, from less privileged backgrounds, have been for almost five years effectively blocked from five years effectively blocked from living and working in Europe.
What urgency is the government giving to putting a scheme in place that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
negotiations. My Lords, this question is a companion piece to Baroness companion piece to Baroness Coussins question last week on Erasmus, to which he got an encouraging reply. The only proviso encouraging reply. The only proviso here, of course, is were we in the single market, which most voters now back, a youth mobility scheme now back, a youth mobility scheme would be entirely unnecessary. So I ask the minister, considering young British people, particularly from British people, particularly from privileged, from less privileged backgrounds, have been for almost five years effectively blocked from five years effectively blocked from living and working in Europe.
What urgency is the government giving to putting a scheme in place that
15:02
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
putting a scheme in place that ensures no more young people are excluded from these important life
**** Possible New Speaker ****
experiences? I very much appreciate the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I very much appreciate the noble Lords question and from where it comes, I want to assure your Lordships' House that discussions Lordships' House that discussions are active underway, and we would hope, I hope, to bring forward detailed responses with the detail
**** Possible New Speaker ****
detailed responses with the detail of the scheme in the coming months. Pods. It's very encouraging to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
experiences? I very much appreciate the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I very much appreciate the noble Lords question and from where it comes, I want to assure your Lordships' House that discussions Lordships' House that discussions are active underway, and we would hope, I hope, to bring forward detailed responses with the detail
**** Possible New Speaker ****
detailed responses with the detail of the scheme in the coming months. Pods. It's very encouraging to
15:03
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
hear that the government is moving forward with what is so important bringing young people together, particularly around Europe. But an event took place in this Parliament this week to support the further development of the teaching of languages. And I wonder, therefore, if the Minister would confirm to me that within the context of bringing young people together, it is also important to encourage our young important to encourage our young people to learn more languages at a time when most schools and colleges are cutting back on such an are cutting back on such an enormous resource.
15:03
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Conservative)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. 60% of schools are struggling to recruit foreign like modern foreign language teachers. The reality is, given that the European Union is our largest trading partner, it probably would be sensible if we could talk to be sensible if we could talk to them in their language as well as ours. So making sure that both via ours. So making sure that both via our joining of the of the Erasmus scheme, making sure there are educational opportunities both for educational opportunities both for staff and young people, as well as a future youth mobility scheme, we are actually ensuring that we have are actually ensuring that we have the we have a shared cultural and the opportunity for shared language schemes to Lord Katz my Lords I wonder.
15:04
The Lord Bishop of Winchester (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Winchester (Bishops)
Oh thank you. Lady the Minister, for her answer for understandable reasons. His Majesty's Government is very concerned at the moment to prevent people crossing the channel in one direction. However, it seems to me that we should be positively encouraging our young people to cross the channel in the other direction to take advantage of the very real opportunities the Youth Mobility Scheme would offer, not simply for their own sake though. That is really important, as we have heard, but because in a in an increasingly fractious and dangerous world, we sorely need young people with a broad, informed international perspective.
So as well as hopefully allowing such mobility, could the noble Lady the Minister confirm that the government would actually encourage such participation?
So as well as hopefully allowing such mobility, could the noble Lady the Minister confirm that the government would actually encourage such participation?
15:05
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
The the Right Reverend makes a very important point about one of the reasons why we have these schemes is because it's about our shared cultural and social norms that develop from it with our nearest allies. We have 13 of these schemes already in existence, ranging from New Zealand and Canada to Uruguay. Ensuring that people have access and so far this year, 12,000 visas have been issued. My lord, we are. This is active participation to make sure that young people have view the world in the broadest possible way.
15:05
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
The minister referred to a balance, and we're very conscious that previously, when we were in the EU, more students and young people from elsewhere came to Britain and followed. Can the government tell us what it is doing to encourage young British people to spend time on the continent, taking apprenticeships a year in universities or whatever? And in terms also of balancing improving languages is is one of the things that we're considering. A teaching assistant exchange in which people with native languages might be able
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to teach in British schools, and people here teaching English there. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to teach in British schools, and people here teaching English there. Yeah.
15:06
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I'd like to reassure the noble Lord that a teaching assistant exchange already exists. So. And I'm more than happy to write noble Lord with the details of that scheme, obviously. We currently have the Turing scheme, which has encouraged over 35,000, has provided over 35,000 opportunities for young people, as well as the scheme and the scheme in Wales and Scotland. If as and when we rejoin Erasmus my Lords, that also gives the opportunity both for educational opportunities but also will provide easier pathways through for education and opportunities across Europe.
My Lords, my Lords, I wonder. Lords, my Lords, I wonder.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I'd like to reassure the noble Lord that a teaching assistant exchange already exists. So. And I'm more than happy to write noble Lord with the details of that scheme, obviously. We currently have the Turing scheme, which has encouraged over 35,000, has provided over 35,000 opportunities for young people, as well as the scheme and the scheme in Wales and Scotland. If as and when we rejoin Erasmus my Lords, that also gives the opportunity both for educational opportunities but also will provide easier pathways through for education and opportunities across Europe.
My Lords, my Lords, I wonder. Lords, my Lords, I wonder.
15:06
Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
Whether I could follow my noble friends, lady cousins and the Earl of Clancarty and create a hat trick by mentioning the less well known Creative Europe. She will know that it includes a Culture Moves programme, which has a budget of 21 million over the current period, to provide mobility grants for cultural professionals. Does she agree that alongside the youth exchange programme, this would be a valuable platform to enable the intercultural international exchange that enables personal development and career growth?
15:07
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
I was doing so well in reassuring noble Lords, but I'm afraid I'll have to give a level of disappointment to the noble lady. We are not currently considering rejoining the creative arm, but what I would say is that the Youth Mobility Scheme, 40% of touring artists are actually under the age of 35, which means that they would be able to access work for three years, up to three years, potentially subject to the negotiations via this scheme. So that is one way where we will be able to encourage creative engagement.
engagement.
engagement.
15:07
Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Finn (Conservative)
At a time when youth engagement and creating opportunities at home are so vital. Why has the government chosen to end the National Citizenship Service and withdraw funding from the Cadet Expansion programme? Have Ministers assessed the wider social and economic benefits these schemes deliver, and will similar initiatives, such as the Duke of Edinburgh's Award be protected from further cuts? It seems to me that we should be building these opportunities for opportunities for young people at home as our first priority.
15:08
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
Well, I very much appreciate the noble Lady support for the cadet scheme. I, in fact, was the honorary president of my local Air Cadets until I joined the government. But let me be very clear, no one in this House will be surprised to appreciate that we had to make some appalling decisions because of the financial inheritance from the previous government, and on that basis, difficult decisions have been made. But noble Lords will also appreciate there have been there have been announcements made about the cadet scheme, and they're available for all noble Lords to look to see how much we celebrate the role of cadets as ambassadors.
The Minister my Lords, the minister, noted that it will be a balanced scheme with an allotted number of places. How will the government places. How will the government make sure that there are young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and rural communities backgrounds and rural communities part of that, and making sure.
The Minister my Lords, the minister, noted that it will be a balanced scheme with an allotted number of places. How will the government places. How will the government make sure that there are young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and rural communities backgrounds and rural communities part of that, and making sure.
15:09
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
That they are not left out of such a scheme? in Stoke on Trent, I completely appreciate where the noble Lady is coming from. The current touring scheme that exists within England is 61% of participants come from underprivileged backgrounds and disadvantaged communities. And actually Erasmus, in terms of their current focus, is also about ensuring that those people who wouldn't otherwise have those opportunities can be afforded them. And this is an incredibly important part of making sure that aspiration and attainment is available to everyone.
A core part of our mission for growth, but also the value system of the Labour Party. value system of the Labour Party.
A core part of our mission for growth, but also the value system of the Labour Party. value system of the Labour Party.
15:09
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
My lords, my lords, my Lord, given the given the importance of scientific research and innovation to the future prosperity of this country, could the noble Baroness the Minister tell us whether or not the government has made an assessment of the impact of the current restrictions on youth mobility in Europe, on the progress of scientific research in this country?
15:10
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
That's a genuinely interesting question, is one of the reasons why our rejoining of Erasmus could be so beneficial to our country. One of the issues that we are that is part of our conversations around the Youth Mobility Scheme, as well as rejoining Erasmus, is the economic impact it will have, as well as ensuring we have opportunities to share both scientific endeavours and discoveries, but also ensuring that we have the opportunity to make sure that our social and creative allies.
15:10
Lord Watts (Labour)
-
-
Lord Watts (Labour)
It's my Lords. Can I ask my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords on the on the question, on the on. It hasn't been a Labour
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It hasn't been a Labour friend. Well, just an assist. Yes. Another example of how badly the Another example of how badly the previous government negotiated the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords on the on the question, on the on. It hasn't been a Labour
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It hasn't been a Labour friend. Well, just an assist. Yes. Another example of how badly the Another example of how badly the previous government negotiated the
15:11
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Brexit deal left our young people before. They.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They. The noble Lord raises a really important point. My Lords. I campaigned for remain. I live in a campaigned for remain. I live in a leave area. I appreciate and and fully respect the result of the referendum and we need to make it work. But that isn't to say that that that didn't come without costs paid by individuals, including our young people. The Turing scheme will great. It has been 35,000 opportunities are afforded by it. My Lords 16 million young people have had opportunities via the Erasmus scheme.
This is a different participate.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Brexit deal left our young people before. They.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They. The noble Lord raises a really important point. My Lords. I campaigned for remain. I live in a campaigned for remain. I live in a leave area. I appreciate and and fully respect the result of the referendum and we need to make it work. But that isn't to say that that that didn't come without costs paid by individuals, including our young people. The Turing scheme will great. It has been 35,000 opportunities are afforded by it. My Lords 16 million young people have had opportunities via the Erasmus scheme.
This is a different participate.
15:11
Oral questions: Prosecution of UK residents involved in looting funds from low- and middle-income countries
-
Oral questions: Prosecution of UK residents involved in looting funds from low- and middle-income countries
Second question Lord Oates.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg. Leave to ask the question. Standing in my name and the Order Paper.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg. Leave to ask the question. Standing in my name and the Order Paper.
15:12
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper. My Lords, the government remains committed to reducing the harms of illicit finance on developing illicit finance on developing countries and to hold those responsible to account. The National Crime Agency's International Corruption Unit and International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre provide critical assistance to help developing countries trace and recover stolen assets and pursue justice via the UK courts. The government plans to publish a new anti-corruption strategy, which will set out ambitious actions and reforms in this area.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper. My Lords, the government remains committed to reducing the harms of illicit finance on developing illicit finance on developing countries and to hold those responsible to account. The National Crime Agency's International Corruption Unit and International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre provide critical assistance to help developing countries trace and recover stolen assets and pursue justice via the UK courts. The government plans to publish a new anti-corruption strategy, which will set out ambitious actions and reforms in this area.
15:12
Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
Lord as the question.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I welcome the government's focus on this critical issue. The Minister will be aware issue. The Minister will be aware of the particular role of the illicit gold trade in fuelling the conflict in Sudan and conflicts conflict in Sudan and conflicts elsewhere, and in laundering the proceeds of corruption around the globe. Will the government globe. Will the government therefore use its forthcoming illicit finance summit to designate additional sanctions packages additional sanctions packages against corrupt elites, such as those members of the Zimbabwe Gold Mafia who have not yet been Mafia who have not yet been sanctioned, and their professional enablers who launder proceeds from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I welcome the government's focus on this critical issue. The Minister will be aware issue. The Minister will be aware of the particular role of the illicit gold trade in fuelling the conflict in Sudan and conflicts conflict in Sudan and conflicts elsewhere, and in laundering the proceeds of corruption around the globe. Will the government globe. Will the government therefore use its forthcoming illicit finance summit to designate additional sanctions packages additional sanctions packages against corrupt elites, such as those members of the Zimbabwe Gold Mafia who have not yet been Mafia who have not yet been sanctioned, and their professional enablers who launder proceeds from
15:13
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
illicit gold trade through the UK Emirates. Here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As he knows, we don't comment on future designations, but I do thank him for reminding us of the role of him for reminding us of the role of illicit gold mining, in particular in this. This is how many, many billions of dollars are are hidden. It is also associated with horrendous abuses of with of people and in all kinds of illicit activities and criminal activity across borders. And I thank him also of reminding the House of our plans to hold a summit next year.
And I look forward to his full engagement in that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
illicit gold trade through the UK Emirates. Here.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As he knows, we don't comment on future designations, but I do thank him for reminding us of the role of him for reminding us of the role of illicit gold mining, in particular in this. This is how many, many billions of dollars are are hidden. It is also associated with horrendous abuses of with of people and in all kinds of illicit activities and criminal activity across borders. And I thank him also of reminding the House of our plans to hold a summit next year.
And I look forward to his full engagement in that.
15:13
Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
My Lord my Lord my Lords. First of all, my apologies that my interests overran courtesy following the the speaker's question. There is already a plan for measures to deal with corruption on an international scale, which I'm sure my noble friend will agree totally undermines both democracy and our overseas aid. And that is the International Corruption Court. Can my noble friend tell me what progress is on that project? progress is on that project?
15:14
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
Well, I suspect my noble friend Lord Hain is also about to ask something along these lines. So I came prepared. So the government is committed to ensuring that those responsible for the most egregious acts of international corruption are prosecuted for the crime. We are supportive of the ambition to strengthen international mechanisms to hold kleptocrats to account, but a realistic about the geopolitical challenges associated with the proposals for an international anti-corruption court at this time. But we do look forward to considering the draft treaty of the court, which is due later this year.
15:15
Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bellingham (Conservative)
My Lords can. going on in France, where they use their universal jurisdiction to investigate and seize the French assets of corrupt African dictators? It should be, well, the case of Teodoro Obiang, who has had his ten supercars impounded and his 60 million House also frozen. In a court order for other cases in the pipeline, including the former president of Gabon and the president of Congo-Brazzaville. So why can't we use similar tactics as the French?
15:15
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
We have had a great deal of success in this and and specifically in seizing assets and returning them to those governments, because I would just want to remind the House that actually, most people in positions of leadership across Africa are not corrupt, and they're working incredibly hard for the benefit of their populations. And I know the noble Lord agrees with that. But we've returned millions of pounds recently to Nigeria, where that money has been able to be reinvested into public services for the benefit of those people.
And that is the work that will continue to do.
And that is the work that will continue to do.
15:16
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)
My Lord over 20 years, I saw how development was being undermined by corruption in too many low income countries. So what will the government do through the International Corruption Unit to ensure that those funds that are being laundered through British administrations are prosecuted, the funds seized and returned to the people who need them, rather than disappear into the morass of illegal looting. Yeah.
15:16
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
But we're working through the unit, but we're also working, I think, importantly, on prevention, and we have a great deal of work taking place alongside the African Development Bank, where we're working to strengthen systems in country so that they're able to take measures themselves to deal with this and to prevent these kind of practices, which, as he says, so badly disadvantaged countries that really need to keep that money in, in countries they can spend it well for the benefit of their people.
15:17
Lord Hain (Labour)
-
-
Lord Hain (Labour)
My Lords it. My noble friend, the minister mentioned the question of a treaty to support already in draft, drawn up by international jurists from right across the world. Can she confirm that the former Foreign Secretary's support for the principle of an international anti-corruption court remains the policy of the Foreign Office? And in receiving this draft treaty, will she also bear in mind that not only should that court be supported by this government, but also that we have a particular responsibility because a lot of these laundered funds come through London and then on to UK overseas territories like the British Virgin Islands, where they are concealed in shell companies.
And that's got to stop. And Britain should be taking a lead on it.
And that's got to stop. And Britain should be taking a lead on it.
15:18
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
Well, an answer, not that it's my job to speak for the Deputy Prime Minister, but our resolve on this remains unchanged and is shared by the newly appointed Foreign Secretary. The issue of the overseas territories. He's right to raise my colleague, Minister Doughty, recently met with the Overseas Territories. There is progress. We have transparency measures and interest registers that are available, fully transparent with Gibraltar. And I think Montserrat as well. There is more to do.
Other OTS are taking steps in the right direction, but we want to see them go much further and we have worked alongside, and I think noble Lord would appreciate that this is a significant step. Sending Baroness Hodge to meet with the BVI to try and encourage them to do what we would like them to do, because, as he says, this is so important in our international fight against illicit finance.
Other OTS are taking steps in the right direction, but we want to see them go much further and we have worked alongside, and I think noble Lord would appreciate that this is a significant step. Sending Baroness Hodge to meet with the BVI to try and encourage them to do what we would like them to do, because, as he says, this is so important in our international fight against illicit finance.
15:19
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
My Lords strengthening.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Existing powers. Is of course welcome, but we already have £25 billion in frozen Russian assets, £13 billion in frozen Libyan assets and £5 billion frozen Libyan assets and £5 billion in frozen cryptocurrency. So when is the government going to take action to put these funds to good
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Existing powers. Is of course welcome, but we already have £25 billion in frozen Russian assets, £13 billion in frozen Libyan assets and £5 billion frozen Libyan assets and £5 billion in frozen cryptocurrency. So when is the government going to take action to put these funds to good
15:19
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
action to put these funds to good use and help our allies in Ukraine and with the crypto, help our own citizens?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I mean, yes, of course he's right. And I would note, nobody would like to see that money released and able to be spent in Ukraine more than me. We do have to act within the law as it currently stands, and as his government left stands, and as his government left it last year, and we don't have the power, as he knows, to seize that in a way that is straightforward. But we will work through the courts. But we will work through the courts.
We will work through with our neighbours and our allies across Europe, specifically in order to Europe, specifically in order to make sure that the people who've caused the damage in Ukraine are held to account, and that wherever
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I mean, yes, of course he's right. And I would note, nobody would like to see that money released and able to be spent in Ukraine more than me. We do have to act within the law as it currently stands, and as his government left stands, and as his government left it last year, and we don't have the power, as he knows, to seize that in a way that is straightforward. But we will work through the courts. But we will work through the courts.
We will work through with our neighbours and our allies across Europe, specifically in order to Europe, specifically in order to make sure that the people who've caused the damage in Ukraine are held to account, and that wherever
15:20
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
held to account, and that wherever possible, they are the people that end up paying for it. I draw attention. To the minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the minister. To say whether the His Majesty's Government has made any representations to the United representations to the United States administration about their decision not to pursue people who were involved in these corrupt practices in both directions, from developing countries into the United States or from the United States into developing countries. Are we making representations, and are we sure that the Trump administration will not do as they did over the emission by ships and torpedo an agreement that is reached by everyone else? reached by everyone else?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
held to account, and that wherever possible, they are the people that end up paying for it. I draw attention. To the minister.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the minister. To say whether the His Majesty's Government has made any representations to the United representations to the United States administration about their decision not to pursue people who were involved in these corrupt practices in both directions, from developing countries into the United States or from the United States into developing countries. Are we making representations, and are we sure that the Trump administration will not do as they did over the emission by ships and torpedo an agreement that is reached by everyone else? reached by everyone else?
15:20
15:21
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Can I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In inviting the Minister to comment on the matter, I'm about to ask, draw attention to my practice at the bar, which involves some corruption cases overseas. One short suggestion may I make to her is that we could increase the is that we could increase the failure to prevent regime under criminal law. We already have failure to prevent bribery, tax failure to prevent bribery, tax evasion and fraud offences, but it's just the work of a moment to it's just the work of a moment to increase the ambit of that, to cover other forms of bribery and corruption and money laundering and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In inviting the Minister to comment on the matter, I'm about to ask, draw attention to my practice at the bar, which involves some corruption cases overseas. One short suggestion may I make to her is that we could increase the is that we could increase the failure to prevent regime under criminal law. We already have failure to prevent bribery, tax failure to prevent bribery, tax evasion and fraud offences, but it's just the work of a moment to it's just the work of a moment to increase the ambit of that, to cover other forms of bribery and corruption and money laundering and
15:21
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
corruption and money laundering and so on. Could she discuss that with Justice?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think I mean, obviously, I do understand that the noble Lord has a great deal of experience in these a great deal of experience in these issues. I'm very happy to take that suggestion back to the foreign, suggestion back to the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to discuss with friends and colleagues at the Home Office, colleagues at the Home Office, because I think that this is an ever changing situation, and we do need to use every tool at our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think I mean, obviously, I do understand that the noble Lord has a great deal of experience in these a great deal of experience in these issues. I'm very happy to take that suggestion back to the foreign, suggestion back to the foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to discuss with friends and colleagues at the Home Office, colleagues at the Home Office, because I think that this is an ever changing situation, and we do need to use every tool at our
15:22
Oral questions: Social cost of leaving England’s water companies in private ownership
-
Oral questions: Social cost of leaving England’s water companies in private ownership
need to use every tool at our disposal in order to combat this illegal activity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And question Lord Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Asked the question. My Lords. The government is committed to protecting the most vulnerable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And question Lord Speaker.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Asked the question. My Lords. The government is committed to protecting the most vulnerable
15:22
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
households and expect water companies to put robust measures in place for households that are struggling to pay their bills. We're bringing forward secondary legislation to introduce new and increased compensation, double the previous amounts or more, which will be compulsory for water companies to pay customers for poor service. service.
15:22
Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
Lord Sikka (Labour)
As the minister, struggling to provide information about social cost of leaving water in private hands, let me help him a little bit. Analysis suggests that between 2025 and 2050, customers of privatised water companies would pay over £1 trillion. That is expressed in 2025 prices. It would probably be higher as companies raise capital from customers while shareholders take returns. People won't own a blade of grass in return if the minister disagrees with this alternative analysis, can I can I ask him to commit to to publishing the commit to to publishing the government's data, please?
15:23
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
Well, I would I would say to my noble friend that the government has indeed published its analysis of the cost of renationalising the water sector, which I believe is what he is getting at. And the analysis that is, is that it would cost on the basis of regulated capital value, which takes into account, of course, not just equity, but also debt. It would cost at least £100 billion to, to, to, to renationalise the water industry. And instead of doing that, my Lords, we're not going to unpick the current ownership model during which time under-investment and sewage pollution will only get worse.
We believe the answer is better regulation. We've introduced the Water Special Measures Act, which is which has already hit on, on, on, on bonuses for ten water executives and toughen the rules. So bosses face up to two years in prison for covering up sewage spills. And following the Cunliffe review this year, we're taking forward a number of forms of sector, chiefly the creation of a powerful chiefly the creation of a powerful new water regulator.
We believe the answer is better regulation. We've introduced the Water Special Measures Act, which is which has already hit on, on, on, on bonuses for ten water executives and toughen the rules. So bosses face up to two years in prison for covering up sewage spills. And following the Cunliffe review this year, we're taking forward a number of forms of sector, chiefly the creation of a powerful chiefly the creation of a powerful new water regulator.
15:24
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
Lords. My Lords. rise by £123 a year from this April? Given that so many families already spend more than 3% of their income on water, what can be done to reverse years of shareholder and executive bonuses without improved services and genuine reinvestment? Why is it that customers, even now, even after the review, are still underinvestment?
15:24
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I thank the noble Baroness for that, that question. And it's for that, that question. And it's all to build on the answer to my noble friend Lord Sikka. We have already put in place new measures, already put in place new measures, including the, the, the, the, the emergency legislation last year to ensure that we are, you know, ensure that we are, you know, bearing down on water executives. And we have indeed taken taken action. As I said, we are putting in place robust sport support in place robust sport support measures for customers that are struggling to pay their bills.
And as a result, water companies have more than doubled the number of more than doubled the number of customers that receive help with their bills through social tariffs from 4% to 9% by 2030. We're working with industry to keep
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I thank the noble Baroness for that, that question. And it's for that, that question. And it's all to build on the answer to my noble friend Lord Sikka. We have already put in place new measures, already put in place new measures, including the, the, the, the, the emergency legislation last year to ensure that we are, you know, ensure that we are, you know, bearing down on water executives. And we have indeed taken taken action. As I said, we are putting in place robust sport support in place robust sport support measures for customers that are struggling to pay their bills.
And as a result, water companies have more than doubled the number of more than doubled the number of customers that receive help with their bills through social tariffs from 4% to 9% by 2030. We're working with industry to keep
15:25
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
working with industry to keep current support schemes under review to ensure current customers are sufficiently supported. Thank you. I think.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I think. it's. Thank you. So much. Thank you. Does the. Noble Lord the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lord the. Minister agree with. Me that the issue really isn't. Public or private ownership? The Public or private ownership? The issue is that the regulator clearly lacked the financial engineering skills to understand, spot and curtail the excessive debt loading and value extraction by private equity in previous years.
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
working with industry to keep current support schemes under review to ensure current customers are sufficiently supported. Thank you. I think.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. I think. it's. Thank you. So much. Thank you. Does the. Noble Lord the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lord the. Minister agree with. Me that the issue really isn't. Public or private ownership? The Public or private ownership? The issue is that the regulator clearly lacked the financial engineering skills to understand, spot and curtail the excessive debt loading and value extraction by private equity in previous years.
15:25
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
Well, I agree completely with the noble Lord and efficient and and and precise and forensic regulation is what is needed in this sector that came across very clearly in the report of the Water Commission, Independent Water Commission, by Sir John Cunliffe, and we have already committed, as in response to to his report, to establish a single regulator for water, and indeed also to introduce a regional element within the regulator, so that working with local communities, local businesses, the regulator can and indeed water companies, the regulator can take account of the circumstances that are needed to ensure that that the the the needs of the area, whether it's in terms of agriculture, whether it's in terms of built environment, are taken account of when in determining water company action.
15:26
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
My Lords, the Cunliffe review does indeed refer to the need for a single regulator, and it concludes in regulation 16, and I quote, this regulator should combine the functions of Ofwat, the drinking water inspectorate and water functions for the Environment Agency and Natural England. Natural England is being given a very big role in the planning Bill Planning and Infrastructure bill, and I just wonder how this fits with what the government is proposing. If they fulfil the regulation, the recommendations of the Cunliffe review, will we have to rewrite the planning bill when the the next water bill comes along?
15:27
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
I thank the noble Baroness for the for for her question. Indeed. I'm interested in this area and indeed in planning and infrastructure. Bill. I don't think anybody in Lordships House would really like us to go through the the pains of going through the planning and infrastructure bill again. That isn't what we're going to do. We are but we but we but it'd be helpful for the House to set out the fact that we've already announced five commitments in, you know, that we are response to the the review and his report.
We will be publishing a white paper and we hope to have a water reform bill in the next Parliament.
We will be publishing a white paper and we hope to have a water reform bill in the next Parliament.
15:27
Baroness Blower (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blower (Labour)
My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I speak as a Thames. Water customer. On the 6th of. August. 2024.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2024. Ofwat announced a fine of £104. Million on Thames Water, £47
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Million on Thames Water, £47 million on Yorkshire Water and £17 million on Northumbrian Water. Almost a. Year. Later.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Later. The Minister said that, quote, Thames Water should pay the fine by the 20th of August 2025. Have they paid up and can my noble friend the Minister say why it is that Minister say why it is that organisations with criminal convictions seem to be allowed to negotiate fines when other
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I speak as a Thames. Water customer. On the 6th of. August. 2024.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2024. Ofwat announced a fine of £104. Million on Thames Water, £47
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Million on Thames Water, £47 million on Yorkshire Water and £17 million on Northumbrian Water. Almost a. Year. Later.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Later. The Minister said that, quote, Thames Water should pay the fine by the 20th of August 2025. Have they paid up and can my noble friend the Minister say why it is that Minister say why it is that organisations with criminal convictions seem to be allowed to negotiate fines when other
15:28
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
negotiate fines when other criminals would not get away with that? Well, I think we've been I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I think we've been I think my, my noble friend, for that question I would I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll have to say I'll have to write I'll have to say I'll have to write to her to precise detail that question about whether that fine has been paid. But I think we've been very, very clear by the Water Special Measures Act and indeed through through our response to the review, that we are absolutely going to bear down on the on the actions of of executives towards companies that take to the take unjustified profits.
We've already done that. We've already fined a number of a number of organisations, cumulatively, more than £240 million in wastewater enforcement, fines and redress have been confirmed by Ofwat in 2025. We're serious about tackling the the, the state of the water sector and we our absolutely, very, very clear that water companies here are, are are meant to secure investment and keep bills down, not take profits.
Lord Katz (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
negotiate fines when other criminals would not get away with that? Well, I think we've been I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I think we've been I think my, my noble friend, for that question I would I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll have to say I'll have to write I'll have to say I'll have to write to her to precise detail that question about whether that fine has been paid. But I think we've been very, very clear by the Water Special Measures Act and indeed through through our response to the review, that we are absolutely going to bear down on the on the actions of of executives towards companies that take to the take unjustified profits.
We've already done that. We've already fined a number of a number of organisations, cumulatively, more than £240 million in wastewater enforcement, fines and redress have been confirmed by Ofwat in 2025. We're serious about tackling the the, the state of the water sector and we our absolutely, very, very clear that water companies here are, are are meant to secure investment and keep bills down, not take profits.
15:29
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
My Lords, my lords, my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are ongoing concerns about the financial position of. Thames Water. Can the noble Lord, the Minister,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can the noble Lord, the Minister, please confirm that no matter what, including special administration regime, consumers will not be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There are ongoing concerns about the financial position of. Thames Water. Can the noble Lord, the Minister,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can the noble Lord, the Minister, please confirm that no matter what, including special administration regime, consumers will not be
15:29
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
regime, consumers will not be forced to pay higher bills to cover failures at Thames Water or indeed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
any other water companies? Well, the noble Lord will be aware that there is a there is a aware that there is a there is a high bar for use of a special administration regime. But we have stepped up our preparations and we stepped up our preparations and we are ready for all eventualities, including being ready to apply for such a regime if necessary. Whilst such a regime if necessary. Whilst the company is stable. We have stepped up the preparations. It's stepped up the preparations.
It's absolutely clear that if they are in serious breach of their principal statutory duties, an enforcement order is appropriate enforcement order is appropriate for the company to change its licence. We will act. We'll make sure that it is not at bill payers
**** Possible New Speaker ****
any other water companies? Well, the noble Lord will be aware that there is a there is a aware that there is a there is a high bar for use of a special administration regime. But we have stepped up our preparations and we stepped up our preparations and we are ready for all eventualities, including being ready to apply for such a regime if necessary. Whilst such a regime if necessary. Whilst the company is stable. We have stepped up the preparations. It's stepped up the preparations.
It's absolutely clear that if they are in serious breach of their principal statutory duties, an enforcement order is appropriate enforcement order is appropriate for the company to change its licence. We will act. We'll make sure that it is not at bill payers
15:30
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expense. My Lords going back to the criminal convictions, the water criminal convictions, the water companies at the moment have 12,000 criminal convictions against them. So can the noble Lord, the Minister tell me at what level, what number will you consider these people criminals and not fit to have an operating licence to deliver our water? water?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
expense. My Lords going back to the criminal convictions, the water criminal convictions, the water companies at the moment have 12,000 criminal convictions against them. So can the noble Lord, the Minister tell me at what level, what number will you consider these people criminals and not fit to have an operating licence to deliver our water? water?
15:30
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
I can only repeat what I've already said. I've. I've already said that. Well, it's very simple. It's very simply the case that we're absolutely we're absolutely continuing the regime with the of the approach of the previous government. But we have done more. We've introduced new legislation last year to ensure that we can block both executive bonuses, which we have, which we have done. We'll continue to bear down on water, on water companies and and ensure that their executives can't take can't take unjustified, unjustified bonuses.
And we'll continue to make sure through the progress of the white paper, which will be coming shortly to noble Earl Lordships consideration and then hopefully legislation next year, although I can obviously say what's going to be in the future. King's Speech we will make sure that the that the, the water companies do not are absolutely live up to their obligations to both customers and indeed the taxpayer.
And we'll continue to make sure through the progress of the white paper, which will be coming shortly to noble Earl Lordships consideration and then hopefully legislation next year, although I can obviously say what's going to be in the future. King's Speech we will make sure that the that the, the water companies do not are absolutely live up to their obligations to both customers and indeed the taxpayer.
15:31
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
-
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
Can I try to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Help my Lords? My Lords, how longer? I to help the honourable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I to help the honourable Minister, is he aware that the American President is now investing American President is now investing in private companies in a way that the USA has not seen or done before? Seeing that the strategic advantage Seeing that the strategic advantage in that when we present the water bill to us, could we please explore bill to us, could we please explore alternatives to the methods we presently have for investment and ownership and try to spread it over ownership and try to spread it over a broader front? And if you can't give me an answer today, when I raise my question on public private
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Help my Lords? My Lords, how longer? I to help the honourable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I to help the honourable Minister, is he aware that the American President is now investing American President is now investing in private companies in a way that the USA has not seen or done before? Seeing that the strategic advantage Seeing that the strategic advantage in that when we present the water bill to us, could we please explore bill to us, could we please explore alternatives to the methods we presently have for investment and ownership and try to spread it over ownership and try to spread it over a broader front? And if you can't give me an answer today, when I raise my question on public private
15:32
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
raise my question on public private partnerships on Monday, maybe it's so. Well, I thank my noble friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I thank my noble friend. Of course, we'll be looking forward to that. To his question on Monday, this. But ahead of that, I can say this. But ahead of that, I can say this is exactly what the the response to the Cunliffe review will be doing in both the White Paper and then future legislation is considering a range of options, a range of options for the way that we that we that we harness the potential of private ownership to provide to to provide our water supply and ensure that we have a, a, a, a water infrastructure that is fit for the future.
Lord Katz (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
raise my question on public private partnerships on Monday, maybe it's so. Well, I thank my noble friend.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I thank my noble friend. Of course, we'll be looking forward to that. To his question on Monday, this. But ahead of that, I can say this. But ahead of that, I can say this is exactly what the the response to the Cunliffe review will be doing in both the White Paper and then future legislation is considering a range of options, a range of options for the way that we that we that we harness the potential of private ownership to provide to to provide our water supply and ensure that we have a, a, a, a water infrastructure that is fit for the future.
15:32
15:32
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
My Lords, the targeted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anti-Semitic campaign against Professor Ben-Gad is deeply troubling and has no place. In our lecture.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In our lecture. Halls. On campus. Or anywhere else. It is not free speech, it is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
harassment, and it is abhorrent. Where a student is found. To. Have been responsible for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
racially motivated harassment, intimidation or incitement to violence, I. Expect universities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anti-Semitic campaign against Professor Ben-Gad is deeply troubling and has no place. In our lecture.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In our lecture. Halls. On campus. Or anywhere else. It is not free speech, it is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
harassment, and it is abhorrent. Where a student is found. To. Have been responsible for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
racially motivated harassment, intimidation or incitement to violence, I. Expect universities.
15:33
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Expect universities. To act swiftly and to use the full force of their disciplinary powers to stop this from happening again.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
again. I thank the noble Lady, the minister, for that. But since the year following October 7th, 2023, year following October 7th, 2023, the Jewish students have seen a 413% increase in antisemitic incidents on campus. And in the last three weeks alone, there have been death threats on university WhatsApp groups and in university students chanting put the eyes in the ground! The Union of Jewish Students are calling on the DfE and the office to provide specific and actionable further guidance to universities on steps they need to take to protect Jewish students and to give the vice chancellors who they, of course, specifically to give them simple and clear communication on what they can do.
So will the noble Lady the Minister commit to do that, and more to stop the glorification of terrorism?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Expect universities. To act swiftly and to use the full force of their disciplinary powers to stop this from happening again.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
again. I thank the noble Lady, the minister, for that. But since the year following October 7th, 2023, year following October 7th, 2023, the Jewish students have seen a 413% increase in antisemitic incidents on campus. And in the last three weeks alone, there have been death threats on university WhatsApp groups and in university students chanting put the eyes in the ground! The Union of Jewish Students are calling on the DfE and the office to provide specific and actionable further guidance to universities on steps they need to take to protect Jewish students and to give the vice chancellors who they, of course, specifically to give them simple and clear communication on what they can do.
So will the noble Lady the Minister commit to do that, and more to stop the glorification of terrorism?
15:34
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
Yes. Union of Jewish Students just last week, and of course, a wrote directly to vice chancellors to outline the seriousness of this issue and the responsibility in action that she expected vice chancellors to take. This was further pursued in a call with vice chancellors that the Secretary of State attended last Friday, organised by universities UK. In addition to that, of course, we are using the additional funding for anti-Semitism training across schools and universities to address this issue and the office through the new condition E6, that started this August have made completely clear to universities their responsibility to prevent the sorts of harassment and intimidation that we have seen too much of.
15:35
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they are expected to put in place to ensure that Jewish students can worship in safety. On the point about designated
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On the point about designated places, I'll come back to the noble Lady, but it is, of course, Lady, but it is, of course, absolutely imperative that all students are able to pursue their religious faith whilst they are students and be protected in their ability to do that. That is one of the reasons why the government has made £500,000 available to the University Jewish Chaplaincy to be able to support Jewish students, and it's also why, as as part of the other work that we're funding, we will train university security staff in how to counter anti-Semitism and to support students in their legitimate following of their faith.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords does. My noble friend, the Minister,
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they are expected to put in place to ensure that Jewish students can worship in safety. On the point about designated
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On the point about designated places, I'll come back to the noble Lady, but it is, of course, Lady, but it is, of course, absolutely imperative that all students are able to pursue their religious faith whilst they are students and be protected in their ability to do that. That is one of the reasons why the government has made £500,000 available to the University Jewish Chaplaincy to be able to support Jewish students, and it's also why, as as part of the other work that we're funding, we will train university security staff in how to counter anti-Semitism and to support students in their legitimate following of their faith.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords does. My noble friend, the Minister,
15:36
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
agree that both following the shocking, violent intimidation of Professor Michael Ben-Gad and the alarming data from the Community Security Trust, which documented Security Trust, which documented 117% surge in university related antisemitic incidents across two academic years, culminating in a academic years, culminating in a record high of 272 incidents in 2324. Does she agree that this demonstrates a clear necessity for universities to fully comply with universities to fully comply with their legal duties in preventing harassment and discrimination of harassment and discrimination of both staff and students on university campuses? Yes, my noble friend is right and like the noble Lord has identified the shocking increase in the scale of anti-Semitic abuse and intimidation that not only students but staff are also facing.
And we but staff are also facing. And we are clear. And to be fair, I believe the vast majority of vice chancellors are clear that this is something which has no place on our campuses and where strong action campuses and where strong action needs to be taken, backed up by the office for students and the new office for students and the new condition around intimidation and harassment, and supported by the harassment, and supported by the investment in tackling anti-Semitism. Education that the government is now making.
government is now making.
And we but staff are also facing. And we are clear. And to be fair, I believe the vast majority of vice chancellors are clear that this is something which has no place on our campuses and where strong action campuses and where strong action needs to be taken, backed up by the office for students and the new office for students and the new condition around intimidation and harassment, and supported by the harassment, and supported by the investment in tackling anti-Semitism. Education that the government is now making.
government is now making.
15:37
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)
Across Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's totally. Disgraceful, as, of course, is the rise in anti-Semitism. But following up the noble Lord, Lord following up the noble Lord, Lord leads question. Surely the further question is what disciplinary steps question is what disciplinary steps will be taken against universities if they fail to halt this rise of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's totally. Disgraceful, as, of course, is the rise in anti-Semitism. But following up the noble Lord, Lord following up the noble Lord, Lord leads question. Surely the further question is what disciplinary steps question is what disciplinary steps will be taken against universities if they fail to halt this rise of
15:38
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anti-Semitism on their campuses? Well, the office for students,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, the office for students, new condition E6, which requires universities to take action and to universities to take action and to have in place the framework to tackle intimidation and harassment, is, of course, a route through which the office could take action against universities. If they don't, as I believe that many vice chancellors are. But if they don't take this seriously, and if they don't ensure that our universities are safe places both for Jewish students and staff. students and staff.
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anti-Semitism on their campuses? Well, the office for students,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, the office for students, new condition E6, which requires universities to take action and to universities to take action and to have in place the framework to tackle intimidation and harassment, is, of course, a route through which the office could take action against universities. If they don't, as I believe that many vice chancellors are. But if they don't take this seriously, and if they don't ensure that our universities are safe places both for Jewish students and staff. students and staff.
15:38
Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Polak (Conservative)
I register. I register an interest. My. My niece is the Chief Executive, Sophie DNO of the University Jewish Chaplaincy, and of course grateful for the 500,000. But my Lords, we can all recall, wasn't that long ago for some of us that when we were students we would study a bit, we would protest maybe a lot, and we'd party even more. We're living in Britain, and yet Jewish students are facing harassment, intimidation, cancellation, and I just find it that fact we're having these discussions in 2025, in Britain, is worried enough of the standing side by side.
And I've said this before action has to be taken. Otherwise we're in for a real shock. Yeah.
And I've said this before action has to be taken. Otherwise we're in for a real shock. Yeah.
15:39
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
Well, I mean, the noble Lord is is right. wholly unacceptable what is happening to Jewish Jewish members of staff. He's also right that, of course, in this country we believe in a right to protest. But believe in a right to protest. But we do not believe in a right to disrupt, intimidate or harass. That, disrupt, intimidate or harass. That, of course, is the reason why the offs now have the powers that I've already outlined. It's why the already outlined.
It's why the government has been very clear in its communication with vice chancellors that this is an issue that must be taken enormously seriously, and where action, as the noble Lord says, must follow. And noble Lord says, must follow. And it's why the government itself is taking action to support the tackling of anti-Semitism through tackling of anti-Semitism through the education system.
It's why the government has been very clear in its communication with vice chancellors that this is an issue that must be taken enormously seriously, and where action, as the noble Lord says, must follow. And noble Lord says, must follow. And it's why the government itself is taking action to support the tackling of anti-Semitism through tackling of anti-Semitism through the education system.
15:40
Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Berger (Labour)
My Lords. to Professor Ben-Gad, the harassment, intimidation, we rightly appalled. And as we've heard, unfortunately, this is not confined to just one member of staff. There are too many students across campuses across the UK and staff that are being impacted in this way. The government's adviser on anti-Semitism might Noble friend Lord Mann, has published a report with recommendations about countering anti-Semitism as a recent report, and it specifically includes how to safeguard Jewish lived experience on campus. Can I ask what steps the government is taking to implement those recommendations of that review, and will it undertake to write to all universities and colleges with the good practice guide that accompanies that very important report?
15:41
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
Well, I'm sure that the work of my noble friend Lord Mann will be something that university vice chancellors should be looking very carefully at in order to inform their work. We have, of course, as I, as I've said, already written to vice chancellors, but we will be following this up with further meetings with vice chancellors. And I will certainly undertake to ensure that the guidance that the my noble friend references is brought to their attention through that process, if not more directly, as she's also suggested.
15:41
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
The noble.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness, the minister has referred a couple of times to the new E6 powers of the office for students. Just to reassure, I hope, Jewish students can the noble Lady Jewish students can the noble Lady set out. If a university is identified with weaknesses under E6,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness, the minister has referred a couple of times to the new E6 powers of the office for students. Just to reassure, I hope, Jewish students can the noble Lady Jewish students can the noble Lady set out. If a university is identified with weaknesses under E6,
15:42
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
identified with weaknesses under E6, how long will it take for those to be addressed? Well, I believe that if if a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I believe that if if a university gets to the point of having to be referred to the office as part of E6, they have clearly already failed and haven't done what this government, and I know this is supported across the House, have been very clear that they should be doing, including directly with vice chancellors, but the office would have the opportunity both to investigate that and to take action, including through fines.
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
identified with weaknesses under E6, how long will it take for those to be addressed? Well, I believe that if if a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I believe that if if a university gets to the point of having to be referred to the office as part of E6, they have clearly already failed and haven't done what this government, and I know this is supported across the House, have been very clear that they should be doing, including directly with vice chancellors, but the office would have the opportunity both to investigate that and to take action, including through fines.
15:42
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Minister does the Minister agree.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Suffering from the conduct of extremists on campus? Does she agree that the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does she agree that the. Right to protest does not include the right to disrupt
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Suffering from the conduct of extremists on campus? Does she agree that the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Does she agree that the. Right to protest does not include the right to disrupt
15:42
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and. To. Disrupt degree ceremonies to the detriment of all students? Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, which is why I think I was clear earlier on that the the right clear earlier on that the the right to protest is most certainly not a right to disrupt or to intimidate or to harass. And it is the responsibility of of all of us and those in the leadership of universities to make sure that students and staff can go about their business, can worship, can learn free of harassment and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
intimidation. And that's what we're determined to deliver. My Lords, that concludes our. Questions for today. Any members
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Questions for today. Any members who wish to leave presently may do Private Private notice.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question on Hurricane Melissa Lord MP. Lords. I beg.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg. Leave to ask a question. Of. Which I have given private notice. The question is as follows. notice. The question is as follows. To ask His Majesty's Government one what steps they are taking to assist the government and people of
Baroness Smith of Malvern, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and. To. Disrupt degree ceremonies to the detriment of all students? Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, which is why I think I was clear earlier on that the the right clear earlier on that the the right to protest is most certainly not a right to disrupt or to intimidate or to harass. And it is the responsibility of of all of us and those in the leadership of universities to make sure that students and staff can go about their business, can worship, can learn free of harassment and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
intimidation. And that's what we're determined to deliver. My Lords, that concludes our. Questions for today. Any members
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Questions for today. Any members who wish to leave presently may do Private Private notice.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Question on Hurricane Melissa Lord MP. Lords. I beg.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg. Leave to ask a question. Of. Which I have given private notice. The question is as follows. notice. The question is as follows. To ask His Majesty's Government one what steps they are taking to assist the government and people of
15:45
15:45
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
The UK stands in solidarity with Jamaica following the devastation caused by Hurricane Melissa. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with her Jamaican counterpart to reaffirm our commitment to support recovery efforts. We have activated our crisis centre in London to assist British nationals in Jamaica, deployed response teams to the region and are mobilising up to £2.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid to help Jamaica rebuild in the wake of this disaster. wake of this disaster.
15:45
Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
I thank the Minister for her response. The people of Jamaica have been subjected to the fiercest storm to have taken place anywhere in the world this year. The statistics are shocking. I know that we are at the rescue and recovery stage, and it will be some time for all fatalities or injuries to be established, but I am sure the whole House will want the people of Jamaica and other islands
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in the region to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers. Hey.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hey. Can I take it that the personnel
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I take it that the personnel on site in the region, because we don't yet know whether there will don't yet know whether there will be further damage to other overseas territories and and other people as well in the region? But is she well in the region? But is she satisfied that we have adequate facilities in the area to give real facilities in the area to give real support at the early stages, particularly with the restoration of power and water supplies to of power and water supplies to avoid disease and further distress? And furthermore, will there be And furthermore, will there be further tranches of financial assistance available, I presume,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in the region to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers. Hey.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hey. Can I take it that the personnel
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Can I take it that the personnel on site in the region, because we don't yet know whether there will don't yet know whether there will be further damage to other overseas territories and and other people as well in the region? But is she well in the region? But is she satisfied that we have adequate facilities in the area to give real facilities in the area to give real support at the early stages, particularly with the restoration of power and water supplies to of power and water supplies to avoid disease and further distress? And furthermore, will there be And furthermore, will there be further tranches of financial assistance available, I presume,
15:47
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
assistance available, I presume, from our overseas development budget? We will support in the way that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We will support in the way that it that is needed. We do have people pre-positioned alongside practical assistance such as practical assistance such as shelter kits and other necessary immediate response equipment. I visited myself the Response Centre in Antigua, which supports the region, but he is absolutely right as well that this is not over and that the hurricane, although diminishing in ferocity, it was a level five and it hit Jamaica, which is the I think it's the the fiercest hurricane ever to hit in history.
But it's still at the moment at three, which is severe, and we're keeping in very close contact with our overseas territories in particular. But also it looks as if the hurricane may pass over Bahamas. So we need to be alive to further developments. We have Royal Navy presence in the region in the form of Trent, and we have expertise there who are experts in this initial humanitarian response. We also have our consular team in Miami ready to respond and to support British nationals.
We know there are very, very many of them in Jamaica.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
assistance available, I presume, from our overseas development budget? We will support in the way that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We will support in the way that it that is needed. We do have people pre-positioned alongside practical assistance such as practical assistance such as shelter kits and other necessary immediate response equipment. I visited myself the Response Centre in Antigua, which supports the region, but he is absolutely right as well that this is not over and that the hurricane, although diminishing in ferocity, it was a level five and it hit Jamaica, which is the I think it's the the fiercest hurricane ever to hit in history.
But it's still at the moment at three, which is severe, and we're keeping in very close contact with our overseas territories in particular. But also it looks as if the hurricane may pass over Bahamas. So we need to be alive to further developments. We have Royal Navy presence in the region in the form of Trent, and we have expertise there who are experts in this initial humanitarian response. We also have our consular team in Miami ready to respond and to support British nationals.
We know there are very, very many of them in Jamaica.
15:48
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
My Lord I'd like to. Thank the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Baroness, the Minister. For our update on other actions that His Majesty's Government are that His Majesty's Government are taking in relation to Hurricane Melissa. But, my Lords, I Melissa. But, my Lords, I understand that the Fcdo website on understand that the Fcdo website on notification went live yesterday for UK visitors to Jamaica to notify the Department of their notify the Department of their presence. It was known by Lords at the weekend that Melissa was active the weekend that Melissa was active and was going to be hitting Jamaica very shortly, notwithstanding the very shortly, notwithstanding the fact these facts, how are visitors fact these facts, how are visitors to Jamaica able to notify the Department if there's very little Department if there's very little Wi-Fi and very little, only very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Baroness, the Minister. For our update on other actions that His Majesty's Government are that His Majesty's Government are taking in relation to Hurricane Melissa. But, my Lords, I Melissa. But, my Lords, I understand that the Fcdo website on understand that the Fcdo website on notification went live yesterday for UK visitors to Jamaica to notify the Department of their notify the Department of their presence. It was known by Lords at the weekend that Melissa was active the weekend that Melissa was active and was going to be hitting Jamaica very shortly, notwithstanding the very shortly, notwithstanding the fact these facts, how are visitors fact these facts, how are visitors to Jamaica able to notify the Department if there's very little Department if there's very little Wi-Fi and very little, only very
15:49
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
intermittent signal? Yeah, I mean, he's absolutely right. This is a problem. We do encourage British nationals to encourage British nationals to register their presence. We have also a 24 over seven telephone access available as well. And we obviously have our our team in Kingston. But he's right. The situation is incredibly difficult. There will be there is local advice issued by authorities in Jamaica which we encourage British nationals to adhere to. We did update our travel advice on Thursday about the likely strength of Hurricane Melissa, and this is the hurricane season in the Caribbean.
These events are not unprecedented, sadly, but I do think that the severity and the impact of this particular hurricane is something greater than we have seen before.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
intermittent signal? Yeah, I mean, he's absolutely right. This is a problem. We do encourage British nationals to encourage British nationals to register their presence. We have also a 24 over seven telephone access available as well. And we obviously have our our team in Kingston. But he's right. The situation is incredibly difficult. There will be there is local advice issued by authorities in Jamaica which we encourage British nationals to adhere to. We did update our travel advice on Thursday about the likely strength of Hurricane Melissa, and this is the hurricane season in the Caribbean.
These events are not unprecedented, sadly, but I do think that the severity and the impact of this particular hurricane is something greater than we have seen before.
15:50
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
I had to be words of condolences and for the devastating impact on the communities there, and share with the noble Lord the regards from all benches in this House. The Minister stated correctly that this is an event which is even worse than the 2017 hurricanes that affected the Caribbean. I welcomed the I supported the previous governments work to change the OECD rules on overseas development assistance for Caribbean and middle income nations to receive short term Oda assistance hit by a catastrophic humanitarian crisis.
The question now is not our intent or our support for the communities in Jamaica, but the scale of which the UK does it. In 2018, the previous government, before the development assistance cuts of that administration, allocated £57 million plus £3 million match funding, £60 million. Now, with the current government's Oda cuts, can the Minister assure me that the £2.5 million is only the start? And what is the current size of the UK's humanitarian crisis? Reserve pool. humanitarian crisis? Reserve pool.
The question now is not our intent or our support for the communities in Jamaica, but the scale of which the UK does it. In 2018, the previous government, before the development assistance cuts of that administration, allocated £57 million plus £3 million match funding, £60 million. Now, with the current government's Oda cuts, can the Minister assure me that the £2.5 million is only the start? And what is the current size of the UK's humanitarian crisis? Reserve pool. humanitarian crisis? Reserve pool.
15:51
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
So I would encourage the noble Lord and I don't want this to sound at all patronising, but the assistance that we're able to give now is very different to that which we may have been able to give ten years ago or so. Because yes, there is the immediate response which will take the form of Oda. And we do have a crisis reserve, which is where it needs to be for this stage in the year. But we've also been able to work on insurance and on construction of.
I was at a hospital in Jamaica very recently, which we'd been able to support the construction and make it something that's much more able to withstand the impact of a hurricane. It has generators, it has its own energy supplies, and some of that is renewable, and it's able to carry on functioning even in the most difficult of circumstances. So the infrastructure is becoming more robust. We've invested alongside others in parametric insurance so that the payouts are very, very fast to enable the government of Jamaica and other islands to to be able to respond much more quickly than they would have been able to previously.
His points about OECD and Oda graduation. I think for small island developing states are really important. It is there is a problem with graduation. We see this with Montserrat at the moment, and it's something we're very keenly looking at to make sure that countries are treated fairly, because at the moment, the way these things work often disadvantages countries with very small populations.
I was at a hospital in Jamaica very recently, which we'd been able to support the construction and make it something that's much more able to withstand the impact of a hurricane. It has generators, it has its own energy supplies, and some of that is renewable, and it's able to carry on functioning even in the most difficult of circumstances. So the infrastructure is becoming more robust. We've invested alongside others in parametric insurance so that the payouts are very, very fast to enable the government of Jamaica and other islands to to be able to respond much more quickly than they would have been able to previously.
His points about OECD and Oda graduation. I think for small island developing states are really important. It is there is a problem with graduation. We see this with Montserrat at the moment, and it's something we're very keenly looking at to make sure that countries are treated fairly, because at the moment, the way these things work often disadvantages countries with very small populations.
15:53
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
My Lords my Lords my Lords my Lords my Lords I'm sure the noble Baroness minister knows how very well the Jamaican government prepared for the coming hurricane season, knowing that absolute once in a lifetime scale of the current hurricane that has hit. But what additional work is the is Her Majesty's Government doing to help Jamaica and other Caribbean islands prepare for the future? Because it's preparation, not repair, that helps nations like Jamaica survive these events.
And also, what work are you doing with the diaspora of which I am a member to help our Mother Island, as it were, recover from such a devastating hit?
And also, what work are you doing with the diaspora of which I am a member to help our Mother Island, as it were, recover from such a devastating hit?
15:53
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
. important point. And my friend, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Kamina Johnson Smith, the Foreign Secretary in Jamaica, on Monday before Melissa hit to have exactly this conversation. I know because I've spoken with Miss Johnson Smith myself in Jamaica, exactly how the extent to which the government there is understanding of what it needs to do and the the preparation that is made within the region is is dramatically different now because there is so much more known, and it is our capability of predicting these events is enhanced in the capability within the region is really quite impressive.
That doesn't mean that they're able to handle this on their own. Of course not. And we have a very a responsibility that we take incredibly seriously, not least because he says there are such strong community links and people to people links, particularly locally with Jamaica. And we will we will continue to work alongside the government there to make sure that they get what they need to be able to to get through this initial period, which will is still fast moving. We're assessing the damage and we will do what we need to do now, but this is something that we're likely to have to stay close to.
The government of Jamaica working on for some time. working on for some time.
That doesn't mean that they're able to handle this on their own. Of course not. And we have a very a responsibility that we take incredibly seriously, not least because he says there are such strong community links and people to people links, particularly locally with Jamaica. And we will we will continue to work alongside the government there to make sure that they get what they need to be able to to get through this initial period, which will is still fast moving. We're assessing the damage and we will do what we need to do now, but this is something that we're likely to have to stay close to.
The government of Jamaica working on for some time. working on for some time.
15:55
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour)
Lords can I ask the government.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To assisting children in particular? Noble Lady will know that, tragically, whenever these that, tragically, whenever these hurricanes hit, it is women and children who are affected most children who are affected most severely. And also, can the noble Lady tell us what work they're doing on the longer term to build doing on the longer term to build resilience, to support the amazing work that's being done in the Caribbean, where the whole Caribbean, where the whole Caribbean works together to prepare for these hurricanes, which regrettably, are coming faster, regrettably, are coming faster, heavier, and every hurricane is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To assisting children in particular? Noble Lady will know that, tragically, whenever these that, tragically, whenever these hurricanes hit, it is women and children who are affected most children who are affected most severely. And also, can the noble Lady tell us what work they're doing on the longer term to build doing on the longer term to build resilience, to support the amazing work that's being done in the Caribbean, where the whole Caribbean, where the whole Caribbean works together to prepare for these hurricanes, which regrettably, are coming faster, regrettably, are coming faster, heavier, and every hurricane is
15:56
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
getting bigger and worse. Well, I think the point about the increased frequency and the increased frequency and severity of these extreme weather events is really important, particularly as we approach Cop. I know it's something that leaders in the Caribbean and elsewhere want to see UK leadership continue to address. To address that, we work alongside governments across the Caribbean and Jamaica, I have to say, takes a lead in much of this with Ccrif and with the work that we're doing on finance to get, as I said earlier, particularly about insurance, making sure that countries are able to take out insurance.
And we've supported the payment of premiums and we've supported the negotiation of policies, but that they pay out very, very quickly. Within weeks of an extreme weather event and that there isn't the need to go and have all the usual assessment and all the rest of it, that if a if a weather event is triggered, that that money gets to where it's needed as quickly as possible. I saw that in Grenada, where farmers were able to rebuild very, very quickly within the season to enable them to support themselves and and and continue to to with their livelihoods.
You know, these things are the consequence of long term partnerships. And I thank my, my noble friend for the work that she's done to make this possible over the years.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
getting bigger and worse. Well, I think the point about the increased frequency and the increased frequency and severity of these extreme weather events is really important, particularly as we approach Cop. I know it's something that leaders in the Caribbean and elsewhere want to see UK leadership continue to address. To address that, we work alongside governments across the Caribbean and Jamaica, I have to say, takes a lead in much of this with Ccrif and with the work that we're doing on finance to get, as I said earlier, particularly about insurance, making sure that countries are able to take out insurance.
And we've supported the payment of premiums and we've supported the negotiation of policies, but that they pay out very, very quickly. Within weeks of an extreme weather event and that there isn't the need to go and have all the usual assessment and all the rest of it, that if a if a weather event is triggered, that that money gets to where it's needed as quickly as possible. I saw that in Grenada, where farmers were able to rebuild very, very quickly within the season to enable them to support themselves and and and continue to to with their livelihoods.
You know, these things are the consequence of long term partnerships. And I thank my, my noble friend for the work that she's done to make this possible over the years.
15:57
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Crossbench)
My Lord, my Lord. Irma and Maria hit and I'm pleased and I support the government's response, particularly the military response. But I want to go to the medium term and the long term. And in paying tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Scotland, for the work she did in coordination with the Commonwealth, what coordination is currently being done with the emergency response to GEMA across the region? And secondly, the previous government set up the Caribbean Infrastructure Fund for exactly the long term development that was needed.
That winds down in 2026, but it was set up exactly to help build back infrastructure Caribbean.
That winds down in 2026, but it was set up exactly to help build back infrastructure Caribbean.
15:57
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
Good question.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I mean, I compliment the work of Sidyma because I think that they are crucial when these things are crucial when these things happen, and it is that locally co-ordinated response. They understand the routes between islands better, they understand the community, they have very strong community, they have very strong connections. They know how to get things done far more quickly than any multilateral international any multilateral international agency would just showing up. So I echo what he says about that, and echo what he says about that, and we will continue to work with our our partners internationally as this unfolds.
We are able to assess this unfolds. We are able to assess exactly what is needed, but it's absolutely vital that the government of Jamaica, who is in government of Jamaica, who is in charge of this, and they know what is needed and that they are able to is needed and that they are able to hold the ring on this, and they're more than capable of doing that. And we'll work closely with them. And we'll work closely with them. On the issue that he raised about the Caribbean Fund.
Obviously, I'm looking at the moment very closely looking at the moment very closely about our allocations for the next few years, very conscious of the few years, very conscious of the impact that that resilience funding, really, I think of it as has been able to achieve so far. And that's one of the reasons that hopefully the infrastructure in the region will be able to withstand these events far, far better. Maybe not completely, but better than it has been able to in the past.
And I will keep that in mind.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I mean, I compliment the work of Sidyma because I think that they are crucial when these things are crucial when these things happen, and it is that locally co-ordinated response. They understand the routes between islands better, they understand the community, they have very strong community, they have very strong connections. They know how to get things done far more quickly than any multilateral international any multilateral international agency would just showing up. So I echo what he says about that, and echo what he says about that, and we will continue to work with our our partners internationally as this unfolds.
We are able to assess this unfolds. We are able to assess exactly what is needed, but it's absolutely vital that the government of Jamaica, who is in government of Jamaica, who is in charge of this, and they know what is needed and that they are able to is needed and that they are able to hold the ring on this, and they're more than capable of doing that. And we'll work closely with them. And we'll work closely with them. On the issue that he raised about the Caribbean Fund.
Obviously, I'm looking at the moment very closely looking at the moment very closely about our allocations for the next few years, very conscious of the few years, very conscious of the impact that that resilience funding, really, I think of it as has been able to achieve so far. And that's one of the reasons that hopefully the infrastructure in the region will be able to withstand these events far, far better. Maybe not completely, but better than it has been able to in the past.
And I will keep that in mind.
15:59
Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
Lords overnight.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In Jamaica, hospitals have been destroyed and need medical supplies and temporary clinics now to treat existing patients and those injured by the hurricane. Thousands of homes have been flattened and residents are now sleeping in their cars. I just had a call this morning telling me this my Lords morning telling me this my Lords Britain has close links with the people of Jamaica, and in the past they came to help rebuild Britain they came to help rebuild Britain during the the Windrush era.
Britain called they came, so will Britain called they came, so will the government react with urgency and not only send financial aid, and not only send financial aid, food and medical supplies, but also vital building materials and resources, and also construction personnel who can help rebuild the homes and hospitals that are so
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In Jamaica, hospitals have been destroyed and need medical supplies and temporary clinics now to treat existing patients and those injured by the hurricane. Thousands of homes have been flattened and residents are now sleeping in their cars. I just had a call this morning telling me this my Lords morning telling me this my Lords Britain has close links with the people of Jamaica, and in the past they came to help rebuild Britain they came to help rebuild Britain during the the Windrush era.
Britain called they came, so will Britain called they came, so will the government react with urgency and not only send financial aid, and not only send financial aid, food and medical supplies, but also vital building materials and resources, and also construction personnel who can help rebuild the homes and hospitals that are so
16:00
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
homes and hospitals that are so desperately needed now. The noble Baroness puts it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Baroness puts it incredibly powerfully, as I would expect her to. And it really matters that people in Jamaica are matters that people in Jamaica are not expected to live in the hardship that she described for any longer than is absolutely necessary. Of course, we will stand with the Government of Jamaica as it responds initially, but also as it then looks at what it needs to do to rebuild and reconstruct. As I say, it is really important that it is the government of Jamaica who leads this.
I know they will do a good job and we will stand with them to to work alongside to make sure that they are able to get what they need, when they need it, and to make sure that the island can be rebuilt into the amazing place that we all love.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
homes and hospitals that are so desperately needed now. The noble Baroness puts it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The noble Baroness puts it incredibly powerfully, as I would expect her to. And it really matters that people in Jamaica are matters that people in Jamaica are not expected to live in the hardship that she described for any longer than is absolutely necessary. Of course, we will stand with the Government of Jamaica as it responds initially, but also as it then looks at what it needs to do to rebuild and reconstruct. As I say, it is really important that it is the government of Jamaica who leads this.
I know they will do a good job and we will stand with them to to work alongside to make sure that they are able to get what they need, when they need it, and to make sure that the island can be rebuilt into the amazing place that we all love.
16:01
Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – report stage (day 4) - part two
-
Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – report stage (day 4) - part two
My Lords that concludes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The time allotted for. The. Private notice question. We will. Allow a moment for the chamber to rearrange.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to rearrange. Itself before we return to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords report. Of the Planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And Infrastructure Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. this. Bill. Be now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The time allotted for. The. Private notice question. We will. Allow a moment for the chamber to rearrange.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to rearrange. Itself before we return to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords report. Of the Planning.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And Infrastructure Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. this. Bill. Be now.
16:02
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be now. Further considered on report. The question. Is that. This bill be now further. Considered on report.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Considered on report. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. We will now continue with. The debate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On Group five.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 122.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 122. My Lords, we return now. To the substantive consideration of part three of the Bill and the Nature Restoration Fund. With this first grouping, considering amendments that relate to the underlying requirements of an environmental requirements of an environmental delivery plan, I'd like to start by responding to the noble Lord Roborough question about the purpose of part three, and I would answer as follows. We know that the answer as follows. We know that the status quo is not working.
Environmental assessments and case by case negotiations of mitigation by case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much slow down the delivery of much needed housing and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the condition of our most important habitats and species most important habitats and species have declined over a sustained period by taking a more strategic approach to the restoration of approach to the restoration of protected sites and species, we can deliver improved environmental deliver improved environmental outcomes while reducing planning delays for the housing and infrastructure that our communities infrastructure that our communities need.
Can I also respond while I'm responding to Lord Roborough on general matters? And he asked me a question on the number of houses subject to nutrient neutrality, that will be unlocked at Royal Assent of the bill. And my answer is that we're very clear that these environmental obligations can only be discharged where a robust and scrutinised EDP is in place. This is the right approach to ensure there is a credible plan that will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we need.
Turning to amendment 130 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Willis, and that's captured. I know the sympathy of some in this House who support the strategic approach of the NRF, but who are concerned about this approach being used where it's not appropriate. But we have always been clear, and the legislation is explicit, that the Secretary of State can only approve an EDP where it is shown to be to materially outweigh the negative effect of development. This is not a throwaway judgement of a Secretary of State, but must be a judgement based on ecologically sound and robustly scrutinised.
EDP, with Natural England providing a statement as to whether they believe the EDP can meet this high bar. And, as the noble Baroness will know, the evidence provided to the Secretary of State is was clarified in the scientific basis of that was clarified in a government amendment. It simply isn't the case that a Secretary of State could sign off an EDP that didn't stack up, and if they ever did, then the bill provides that such a decision could be challenged via a judicial review in capturing a range of environmental features that could be addressed through an EDP.
The government is not seeking to suggest that Edp's will come forward covering each of these features, but simply that we should be able to bring forward EDPs where science supports the case and the evidence would allow the Secretary of State to approve the EDP in line with the overall improvement test, where the science does not support it, and EDP could not be made, but to limit EDPs in the way this amendment suggests would be to close off the potential that EDP offer to deliver more than the current system and help support the recovery of protected sites and species, rather than merely offsetting the impact of development.
I'd also like to respond to some of the noble Baronesses questions firstly, on the mitigation hierarchy, which she asked me a question about. Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when they develop EDPs. It's an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. However, it's not always the case. The flexibility provided by this bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England's expert judgement, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to suboptimal outcomes, and only then, and where money could be spent in a far more effective way to achieve better outcomes for nature.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me about process and I would respond to that that EDPs themselves will not require additional assessment. Natural England will carry out assessments on behalf of the developer. Sorry. Natural England will carry out assessments and surveys, and developers will no longer have to do that for the features in the EDP. The noble Baroness. My noble friend, Lady Young asked a question about the European conventions. This bill does not repeal any existing legislation and will not weaken the UK's continued support for and implementation of any of our international commitments.
We are committed to EU, UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and its provisions, which ensure that mutual high standards are protected. EDPs will will ensure better environmental outcomes that go further than current legislation, which simply offsets harm and money from the NRF is ring fenced for nature under clauses in the bill. I am conscious that the NRF has not had the easiest genesis, but I believe the government has shown it is listening and the legislation demonstrates a real commitment to breaking from the status quo that has at best, overseen the managed decline of our most valued protected sites and species.
With this explanation, I hope the noble Lady feels able to withdraw her amendment. Amendment 201, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough, will provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to manage the effects of nutrients in water. This draws on the amendments tabled by the previous government during the passage of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which were rightly defeated by this House. While we share the Noble Lords desire to address nutrient neutrality, we cannot simply rely on broad powers and the promise of action.
The Nature Restoration Fund creates a clear path to addressing this issue based on credible evidence. A robust and tested EDP, and the legal guarantee that funding will be secured to ensure conservation measures deliver environmental improvement. Granting the Secretary of State such a broad. Henry the Eighth Power raises not only questions, but serious risks as to how such a power could be used. Turning to amendment 122, also tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough, this seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP and requires Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part.
To comply with this guidance, I recognise the importance of the matters the noble Lord raises, including in respect of agricultural businesses, food security and the land that communities really value. The Secretary of State is already able to make guidance on any matter relevant to the making of an EDP, which would naturally include the important matters raised in this amendment. Speaking directly to the issue of compulsory purchase raised by the proposed amendment, as it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make an EDP and to authorise Natural England use of compulsory purchase powers.
If the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way the EDP has been drafted, they may simply choose not to make the EDP. And similarly, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way Natural England is proposing to exercise their compulsory purchase powers, the Secretary of State may simply choose not to authorise the exercise of the powers. Amendment one two, nine, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, would require EDPs to identify all environmental impacts from development to which the EDP relates on the environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP.
As we have said throughout these sessions, EDP is a targeted plan to address specific impacts from development on identified environmental features. These are not a replacement for wider assessment or intervention, but a way to allow specific impacts to be addressed through a more strategic approach. And while Natural England will of course be live to other impacts, the focus of the EDP has to be on the specific impact, as it is only this impact and the associated environmental obligation that is being discharged through the EDP.
We have been clear throughout that anything not covered by an EDP will be considered and addressed through the existing system. For this reason, it would simply add burden to an EDP to require Natural England to identify all impacts where the EDP itself is only tasked with addressing specific impacts. Amendment 1 to 8, also tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, would require an EDP to identify all environmental impacts that may be expected as a result of the development to which an EDP relates.
As I mentioned during committee stage, these and I've just repeated again, EDPs are targeted plans, and the government is clear that an EDP will only modify existing obligations for identified impacts, and where the EDP itself can demonstrate how conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the specific environmental
**** Possible New Speaker ****
feature. Any impacts not addressed? Sorry. So to the. Noble Lady the Minister. I'm
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady the Minister. I'm afraid I think she's failed to understand that the amendments that I proposed following the debate in I proposed following the debate in committee are directed towards only the environmental feature and the negative effects associated with that environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP. She is suggesting that I'm widening it out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
suggesting that I'm widening it out to other features. It isn't. It's only that feature. I'm sorry if I misunderstood,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I think that may be the confusion in the wording that it it confusion in the wording that it it seemed that the amendment was trying to widen that out. And as I've, as I've said, any impact that's not addressed through the EDP is subject to a separate EDP is subject to a separate assessment. So so we don't need and it wouldn't need to form part of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the EDP itself. Also 55 section one A I've left
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Also 55 section one A I've left where the government left it, which means we are only concerned with the environmental feature which is the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. All of her argument against my amendments is, is around the proposition that I'm trying to widen it out to other things. I'm not. I'm simply saying if there is a negative effect associated with that environmental feature derived from that development, it should be identified in the EDP.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But the very nature of the EDP would do that anyway, because it must. The EDP the action taken by the EDP must materially outweigh the impact of the development. So the impact of the development. So I'm not clear if that's what the I'm not clear if that's what the noble Lord is trying to say. That is the purpose of the EDP in the first place. I'll continue now, my Lords, as set out in the explanatory statement. Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Markham seeks to encourage debate Markham seeks to encourage debate on the proportionality of conservation measures included in an EDP.
In doing so, the amendment an EDP. In doing so, the amendment proposes that EDP should consider the monetary value of the plants or animals the conservation measures animals the conservation measures would support in order to ensure conservation measures are proportionate, as the noble Lord proportionate, as the noble Lord will be aware, from the debates to date, EDPs will be required to date, EDPs will be required to materially to materially outweigh the negative effects that development would have on a relevant environmental feature, be relevant environmental feature, be it a feature of a protected site or a protected species.
This may include multiple plant species of include multiple plant species of varying abundance and similarly for protected species and EDP would address these impacts at an address these impacts at an appropriate population scale. The scale of conservation measures required will be determined by the scale of impact from development, with the levy rate being set to ensure that sufficient measures are delivered in order to meet the overall improvement test. In setting the regulations that will govern the Nature Restoration levy, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the levy does not render development economically unviable, but the levy must be sufficient to deliver the necessary conservation measures in line with the overall improvement test.
This will ensure that the levy is set at a rate that delivers for both nature and development, with developers in all but exceptional circumstances being able to choose whether to use an EDP or whether to address these impacts and secure the necessary measures themselves under the existing system. And I hope with this explanation, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment. And finally turn to amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough, which would require the preparation of a report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the consolidation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
As they relate to planning, I appreciate the dual Systems of the Habitats Regulations, which cover habitat sites and includes the HRA process and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which covers SSIS, can appear complex, however, in practice there are integrated processes which address and manage this complexity. These processes are well understood by practitioners, and while the government will always look for opportunities to improve processes, this amendment risks creating uncertainty that may delay development and presupposes that consolidation is necessary and desirable.
At this time, we do not consider such report is necessary, but even if it were, it would be a legal rather than an ecological exercise which would fall outside the Jenks area of expertise. Given
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this explanation, I would hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment. My Lords, I am grateful to the
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be now. Further considered on report. The question. Is that. This bill be now further. Considered on report.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Considered on report. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. We will now continue with. The debate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On Group five.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 122.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 122. My Lords, we return now. To the substantive consideration of part three of the Bill and the Nature Restoration Fund. With this first grouping, considering amendments that relate to the underlying requirements of an environmental requirements of an environmental delivery plan, I'd like to start by responding to the noble Lord Roborough question about the purpose of part three, and I would answer as follows. We know that the answer as follows. We know that the status quo is not working.
Environmental assessments and case by case negotiations of mitigation by case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much slow down the delivery of much needed housing and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the condition of our most important habitats and species most important habitats and species have declined over a sustained period by taking a more strategic approach to the restoration of approach to the restoration of protected sites and species, we can deliver improved environmental deliver improved environmental outcomes while reducing planning delays for the housing and infrastructure that our communities infrastructure that our communities need.
Can I also respond while I'm responding to Lord Roborough on general matters? And he asked me a question on the number of houses subject to nutrient neutrality, that will be unlocked at Royal Assent of the bill. And my answer is that we're very clear that these environmental obligations can only be discharged where a robust and scrutinised EDP is in place. This is the right approach to ensure there is a credible plan that will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we need.
Turning to amendment 130 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Willis, and that's captured. I know the sympathy of some in this House who support the strategic approach of the NRF, but who are concerned about this approach being used where it's not appropriate. But we have always been clear, and the legislation is explicit, that the Secretary of State can only approve an EDP where it is shown to be to materially outweigh the negative effect of development. This is not a throwaway judgement of a Secretary of State, but must be a judgement based on ecologically sound and robustly scrutinised.
EDP, with Natural England providing a statement as to whether they believe the EDP can meet this high bar. And, as the noble Baroness will know, the evidence provided to the Secretary of State is was clarified in the scientific basis of that was clarified in a government amendment. It simply isn't the case that a Secretary of State could sign off an EDP that didn't stack up, and if they ever did, then the bill provides that such a decision could be challenged via a judicial review in capturing a range of environmental features that could be addressed through an EDP.
The government is not seeking to suggest that Edp's will come forward covering each of these features, but simply that we should be able to bring forward EDPs where science supports the case and the evidence would allow the Secretary of State to approve the EDP in line with the overall improvement test, where the science does not support it, and EDP could not be made, but to limit EDPs in the way this amendment suggests would be to close off the potential that EDP offer to deliver more than the current system and help support the recovery of protected sites and species, rather than merely offsetting the impact of development.
I'd also like to respond to some of the noble Baronesses questions firstly, on the mitigation hierarchy, which she asked me a question about. Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when they develop EDPs. It's an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. However, it's not always the case. The flexibility provided by this bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England's expert judgement, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to suboptimal outcomes, and only then, and where money could be spent in a far more effective way to achieve better outcomes for nature.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me about process and I would respond to that that EDPs themselves will not require additional assessment. Natural England will carry out assessments on behalf of the developer. Sorry. Natural England will carry out assessments and surveys, and developers will no longer have to do that for the features in the EDP. The noble Baroness. My noble friend, Lady Young asked a question about the European conventions. This bill does not repeal any existing legislation and will not weaken the UK's continued support for and implementation of any of our international commitments.
We are committed to EU, UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and its provisions, which ensure that mutual high standards are protected. EDPs will will ensure better environmental outcomes that go further than current legislation, which simply offsets harm and money from the NRF is ring fenced for nature under clauses in the bill. I am conscious that the NRF has not had the easiest genesis, but I believe the government has shown it is listening and the legislation demonstrates a real commitment to breaking from the status quo that has at best, overseen the managed decline of our most valued protected sites and species.
With this explanation, I hope the noble Lady feels able to withdraw her amendment. Amendment 201, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough, will provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to manage the effects of nutrients in water. This draws on the amendments tabled by the previous government during the passage of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which were rightly defeated by this House. While we share the Noble Lords desire to address nutrient neutrality, we cannot simply rely on broad powers and the promise of action.
The Nature Restoration Fund creates a clear path to addressing this issue based on credible evidence. A robust and tested EDP, and the legal guarantee that funding will be secured to ensure conservation measures deliver environmental improvement. Granting the Secretary of State such a broad. Henry the Eighth Power raises not only questions, but serious risks as to how such a power could be used. Turning to amendment 122, also tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough, this seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP and requires Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part.
To comply with this guidance, I recognise the importance of the matters the noble Lord raises, including in respect of agricultural businesses, food security and the land that communities really value. The Secretary of State is already able to make guidance on any matter relevant to the making of an EDP, which would naturally include the important matters raised in this amendment. Speaking directly to the issue of compulsory purchase raised by the proposed amendment, as it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make an EDP and to authorise Natural England use of compulsory purchase powers.
If the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way the EDP has been drafted, they may simply choose not to make the EDP. And similarly, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way Natural England is proposing to exercise their compulsory purchase powers, the Secretary of State may simply choose not to authorise the exercise of the powers. Amendment one two, nine, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, would require EDPs to identify all environmental impacts from development to which the EDP relates on the environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP.
As we have said throughout these sessions, EDP is a targeted plan to address specific impacts from development on identified environmental features. These are not a replacement for wider assessment or intervention, but a way to allow specific impacts to be addressed through a more strategic approach. And while Natural England will of course be live to other impacts, the focus of the EDP has to be on the specific impact, as it is only this impact and the associated environmental obligation that is being discharged through the EDP.
We have been clear throughout that anything not covered by an EDP will be considered and addressed through the existing system. For this reason, it would simply add burden to an EDP to require Natural England to identify all impacts where the EDP itself is only tasked with addressing specific impacts. Amendment 1 to 8, also tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, would require an EDP to identify all environmental impacts that may be expected as a result of the development to which an EDP relates.
As I mentioned during committee stage, these and I've just repeated again, EDPs are targeted plans, and the government is clear that an EDP will only modify existing obligations for identified impacts, and where the EDP itself can demonstrate how conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the specific environmental
**** Possible New Speaker ****
feature. Any impacts not addressed? Sorry. So to the. Noble Lady the Minister. I'm
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady the Minister. I'm afraid I think she's failed to understand that the amendments that I proposed following the debate in I proposed following the debate in committee are directed towards only the environmental feature and the negative effects associated with that environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP. She is suggesting that I'm widening it out
**** Possible New Speaker ****
suggesting that I'm widening it out to other features. It isn't. It's only that feature. I'm sorry if I misunderstood,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I think that may be the confusion in the wording that it it confusion in the wording that it it seemed that the amendment was trying to widen that out. And as I've, as I've said, any impact that's not addressed through the EDP is subject to a separate EDP is subject to a separate assessment. So so we don't need and it wouldn't need to form part of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the EDP itself. Also 55 section one A I've left
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Also 55 section one A I've left where the government left it, which means we are only concerned with the environmental feature which is the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. All of her argument against my amendments is, is around the proposition that I'm trying to widen it out to other things. I'm not. I'm simply saying if there is a negative effect associated with that environmental feature derived from that development, it should be identified in the EDP.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But the very nature of the EDP would do that anyway, because it must. The EDP the action taken by the EDP must materially outweigh the impact of the development. So the impact of the development. So I'm not clear if that's what the I'm not clear if that's what the noble Lord is trying to say. That is the purpose of the EDP in the first place. I'll continue now, my Lords, as set out in the explanatory statement. Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Markham seeks to encourage debate Markham seeks to encourage debate on the proportionality of conservation measures included in an EDP.
In doing so, the amendment an EDP. In doing so, the amendment proposes that EDP should consider the monetary value of the plants or animals the conservation measures animals the conservation measures would support in order to ensure conservation measures are proportionate, as the noble Lord proportionate, as the noble Lord will be aware, from the debates to date, EDPs will be required to date, EDPs will be required to materially to materially outweigh the negative effects that development would have on a relevant environmental feature, be relevant environmental feature, be it a feature of a protected site or a protected species.
This may include multiple plant species of include multiple plant species of varying abundance and similarly for protected species and EDP would address these impacts at an address these impacts at an appropriate population scale. The scale of conservation measures required will be determined by the scale of impact from development, with the levy rate being set to ensure that sufficient measures are delivered in order to meet the overall improvement test. In setting the regulations that will govern the Nature Restoration levy, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the levy does not render development economically unviable, but the levy must be sufficient to deliver the necessary conservation measures in line with the overall improvement test.
This will ensure that the levy is set at a rate that delivers for both nature and development, with developers in all but exceptional circumstances being able to choose whether to use an EDP or whether to address these impacts and secure the necessary measures themselves under the existing system. And I hope with this explanation, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment. And finally turn to amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough, which would require the preparation of a report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the consolidation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
As they relate to planning, I appreciate the dual Systems of the Habitats Regulations, which cover habitat sites and includes the HRA process and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which covers SSIS, can appear complex, however, in practice there are integrated processes which address and manage this complexity. These processes are well understood by practitioners, and while the government will always look for opportunities to improve processes, this amendment risks creating uncertainty that may delay development and presupposes that consolidation is necessary and desirable.
At this time, we do not consider such report is necessary, but even if it were, it would be a legal rather than an ecological exercise which would fall outside the Jenks area of expertise. Given
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this explanation, I would hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment. My Lords, I am grateful to the
16:16
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Willis for the introduction of her amendment. 130 and to those who spoke so and to those who spoke so convincingly in support, and I also thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response to these amendments, particularly the clarifications around the issues addressed by amendment one two, two, as I fear the government remains intransigent on the issues and so our mind remains resolved. Should the noble Baroness Lady Willis choose to move amendment 130 to a vote at the appropriate time, our benches will be in support.
In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment one two, two. withdraw. An amendment. Is by. Leave withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Leave withdrawn. Amendment 123 Lord Roborough. Amendment 124 Lord Roborough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 124 Lord Roborough. Amendment 125 Lord Maude and 126
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 125 Lord Maude and 126 not moved. I cannot. has.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Already been replaced by amendment 121H Lord Lansley 128 not amendment 121H Lord Lansley 128 not moved 129 not moved. We now come to amendment 130 Baroness Willis.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 130 Baroness Willis. My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to the debate and to contributed to the debate and to the the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response. However, I did not find her arguments I did not find her arguments reassuring, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
test the opinion of the House. My Lords, the question. The question is that this. Amendment be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of that opinion will say, content. The contrary, not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open.
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Willis for the introduction of her amendment. 130 and to those who spoke so and to those who spoke so convincingly in support, and I also thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response to these amendments, particularly the clarifications around the issues addressed by amendment one two, two, as I fear the government remains intransigent on the issues and so our mind remains resolved. Should the noble Baroness Lady Willis choose to move amendment 130 to a vote at the appropriate time, our benches will be in support.
In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment one two, two. withdraw. An amendment. Is by. Leave withdrawn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Leave withdrawn. Amendment 123 Lord Roborough. Amendment 124 Lord Roborough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 124 Lord Roborough. Amendment 125 Lord Maude and 126
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 125 Lord Maude and 126 not moved. I cannot. has.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Already been replaced by amendment 121H Lord Lansley 128 not amendment 121H Lord Lansley 128 not moved 129 not moved. We now come to amendment 130 Baroness Willis.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment 130 Baroness Willis. My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to the debate and to contributed to the debate and to the the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response. However, I did not find her arguments I did not find her arguments reassuring, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
test the opinion of the House. My Lords, the question. The question is that this. Amendment be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of that opinion will say, content. The contrary, not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open.
16:18
Division
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now open. Voting is now open. Clear Voting is now open. Clear the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are Are you Are you off Are you off to?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are you off to? The The question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of that opinion will say. Content the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Contrary. Not content. Content. The contents. Will go to the right.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By the throne. The not contents to the. Left by the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very. Can Can you Can you feel Can you feel. Yes,
**** 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 My Lords. The question is that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This amendment be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords. There have voted. Contents 260,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not. Contents 141. So the contents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So the contents. Have it. We now come to the
Division
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now open. Voting is now open. Clear Voting is now open. Clear the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are Are you Are you off Are you off to?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Are you off to? The The question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of that opinion will say. Content the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Contrary. Not content. Content. The contents. Will go to the right.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
By the throne. The not contents to the. Left by the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very. Can Can you Can you feel Can you feel. Yes,
**** 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 My Lords. The question is that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This amendment be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords. There have voted. Contents 260,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
not. Contents 141. So the contents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So the contents. Have it. We now come to the
16:29
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it. We now come to the eighth group amendment 131 Lord Roborough. My Lords, I rise to Roborough. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 131 and my other amendments in this group. Amendments one three, 1137151 and 152 seek reassurance that Natural England will use the best available evidence when developing and approving edps, and that will be confirmed by the Secretary of State. The reason for these amendments is that this has not always been clearly the case, and that in turn, is evidenced by the revised heather burning regulations that we will be debating tomorrow.
Amendment 156 requires that Natural England should report each year on the performance of each EDP. In that year, the noble Baroness Minister did not reassure the House at committee stage that the reporting requirements for the Nature Restoration Fund or individual edps were satisfactory. I am sure that each EDP will be reporting its performance internally and annually, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister could confirm that. And if that is the case, why is there a reluctance to share that with the public within any reporting? Amendment 157 requires the impact on the local community and economy to be assessed and reported on in some of the remoter parts of our country.
We have seen rewilding schemes and similar undertaken, which have undermined local economies and created distrust with local communities. We think it is critically important that there is this level of engagement with that local community, and by requiring that, it ensures that their views are taken fully into account. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister, can provide some reassurance here. Amendment 174 makes a simple substitution of must for May. Why wouldn't Natural England be required to publish these conservation measures? Do we really think they will publish if it is only voluntary to do so? I hope the government has made progress in addressing these concerns since
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee stage, and I beg to move. Amendment proposed. In clause 55, page. 92, line.
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it. We now come to the eighth group amendment 131 Lord Roborough. My Lords, I rise to Roborough. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 131 and my other amendments in this group. Amendments one three, 1137151 and 152 seek reassurance that Natural England will use the best available evidence when developing and approving edps, and that will be confirmed by the Secretary of State. The reason for these amendments is that this has not always been clearly the case, and that in turn, is evidenced by the revised heather burning regulations that we will be debating tomorrow.
Amendment 156 requires that Natural England should report each year on the performance of each EDP. In that year, the noble Baroness Minister did not reassure the House at committee stage that the reporting requirements for the Nature Restoration Fund or individual edps were satisfactory. I am sure that each EDP will be reporting its performance internally and annually, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Minister could confirm that. And if that is the case, why is there a reluctance to share that with the public within any reporting? Amendment 157 requires the impact on the local community and economy to be assessed and reported on in some of the remoter parts of our country.
We have seen rewilding schemes and similar undertaken, which have undermined local economies and created distrust with local communities. We think it is critically important that there is this level of engagement with that local community, and by requiring that, it ensures that their views are taken fully into account. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister, can provide some reassurance here. Amendment 174 makes a simple substitution of must for May. Why wouldn't Natural England be required to publish these conservation measures? Do we really think they will publish if it is only voluntary to do so? I hope the government has made progress in addressing these concerns since
**** Possible New Speaker ****
committee stage, and I beg to move. Amendment proposed. In clause 55, page. 92, line.
16:31
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
92, line. Four at end insert as assessed by the use of the. Best available.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Evidence. I rise to say it's absolutely pointless voting for this, because pointless voting for this, because Natural England can't do the job it's got at the moment, and so unless it's better resourced and has better structure, it's completely pointless giving it any more jobs. However, I stand here in the throes of two very strong emotions, and the first is that I signed 38 Conservative amendments 38. I've never done anything like that before. I committed to something I thought that the conservatives were going to do and they didn't do it.
They let us all down. They decided not to try to take out part three. Now, I think that's shameful. If you are an opposition, why don't you oppose what you've just done is playing politics. And that's why politicians have such a bad reputation. And obviously my second motion is fury, which I normally mostly reserve for the government because I think that part three absolutely stinks and should not. There should be no effort. Put it. Excuse me. There should be no effort.
You can go. It's fine. There should be no effort to get it through this House. It is a terrible piece of legislation. It completely ignores the fact that we need nature. We depend on nature. And the Labour government is so eco ignorant that it completely avoids the plot. But going back to the conservatives, you are not to be trusted if you can't oppose the government when you know they're wrong, why on earth are you sitting here? Why are you bothering? Now? There are some noble lords and I use the word noble advisedly.
There are noble lords this side who, if I had moved one, two, three, I co-signed it. They would have supported me. And I'm very touched about that, and I do thank them. But quite honestly, we are allowing these amendments now to go through. We're trying to improve them, but it's like putting lipstick on a lamppost. I'm not going to say pig, I like pigs. It's like trying to tart something up that doesn't need it because it should really be thrown out.
So quite honestly, don't vote for this. In fact, don't trust the Tories on any single amendment that they put forward. From now on. They're playing politics. They are not trying to do their best for Britain. They're
**** Possible New Speaker ****
actually just thinking about themselves. Oh my my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh my my Lords. That was great fun. And I hope. The. Noble Lady feels better. For her confession as. To how.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
92, line. Four at end insert as assessed by the use of the. Best available.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Evidence. I rise to say it's absolutely pointless voting for this, because pointless voting for this, because Natural England can't do the job it's got at the moment, and so unless it's better resourced and has better structure, it's completely pointless giving it any more jobs. However, I stand here in the throes of two very strong emotions, and the first is that I signed 38 Conservative amendments 38. I've never done anything like that before. I committed to something I thought that the conservatives were going to do and they didn't do it.
They let us all down. They decided not to try to take out part three. Now, I think that's shameful. If you are an opposition, why don't you oppose what you've just done is playing politics. And that's why politicians have such a bad reputation. And obviously my second motion is fury, which I normally mostly reserve for the government because I think that part three absolutely stinks and should not. There should be no effort. Put it. Excuse me. There should be no effort.
You can go. It's fine. There should be no effort to get it through this House. It is a terrible piece of legislation. It completely ignores the fact that we need nature. We depend on nature. And the Labour government is so eco ignorant that it completely avoids the plot. But going back to the conservatives, you are not to be trusted if you can't oppose the government when you know they're wrong, why on earth are you sitting here? Why are you bothering? Now? There are some noble lords and I use the word noble advisedly.
There are noble lords this side who, if I had moved one, two, three, I co-signed it. They would have supported me. And I'm very touched about that, and I do thank them. But quite honestly, we are allowing these amendments now to go through. We're trying to improve them, but it's like putting lipstick on a lamppost. I'm not going to say pig, I like pigs. It's like trying to tart something up that doesn't need it because it should really be thrown out.
So quite honestly, don't vote for this. In fact, don't trust the Tories on any single amendment that they put forward. From now on. They're playing politics. They are not trying to do their best for Britain. They're
**** Possible New Speaker ****
actually just thinking about themselves. Oh my my Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh my my Lords. That was great fun. And I hope. The. Noble Lady feels better. For her confession as. To how.
16:34
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To how. Many Conservative. Amendments she signed. You know, it's a. It's a it's a surprise to us all. I'm sure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sure. I take a slightly. Different view. I don't. Know why we. Didn't. Vote one, two, three.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Vote one, two, three. And I wish. We had because I certainly would didn't.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
didn't. Their support. I think all of. bill. Why? Because the government says we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Because the government says we should follow the science. It makes a great play of the evidence that should be underpinning all of these should be underpinning all of these IDPs and all the amendments in this group essentially are about providing proper evidence. And surely that isn't controversial. My Lords the best evidence is frequently referred to and proper reporting is required. I cannot understand why anybody would be against any of that. I agree part three is a disaster, but we're trying to improve it.
I don't know about lipstick on a lamppost. I think we just try to improve it a bit given what we've been given. But I support these amendments for what they're worth, and I think castigating the opposition does not really help greatly. They're trying
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as hard as they can to improve this. So can I just say not least to. The noble Lady Baroness Jones.
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To how. Many Conservative. Amendments she signed. You know, it's a. It's a it's a surprise to us all. I'm sure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sure. I take a slightly. Different view. I don't. Know why we. Didn't. Vote one, two, three.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Vote one, two, three. And I wish. We had because I certainly would didn't.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
didn't. Their support. I think all of. bill. Why? Because the government says we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Because the government says we should follow the science. It makes a great play of the evidence that should be underpinning all of these should be underpinning all of these IDPs and all the amendments in this group essentially are about providing proper evidence. And surely that isn't controversial. My Lords the best evidence is frequently referred to and proper reporting is required. I cannot understand why anybody would be against any of that. I agree part three is a disaster, but we're trying to improve it.
I don't know about lipstick on a lamppost. I think we just try to improve it a bit given what we've been given. But I support these amendments for what they're worth, and I think castigating the opposition does not really help greatly. They're trying
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as hard as they can to improve this. So can I just say not least to. The noble Lady Baroness Jones.
16:35
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. As it happens, I support the view that it would be wrong to take view that it would be wrong to take out part three at this stage. And I say that for procedural reasons, if we took out part three, in effect, we would send it back to the other place without part three in it and they would reinstate it. And I fail to see at what point we would be able to do all the things that we've just been talking about.
And we will go on to talk about, which is to revise part three so that we can do our job, which is to take all the most harmful aspects of part three out and put improvements
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in. I'm so sorry. I don't know if I'm allowed to shout at him again. I'm allowed to shout at him again. What? What are they revising? Tell me what they're advising. They're not revising anything. They're not revising anything. They're intransigent. They refuse to listen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So why? Why are we even trying? I think I understand what the. Noble Lady is saying, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady is saying, and I think part three is so devastating. But I'm not going to do Second Reading speech because I was pretty
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yeah. As it happens, I support the view that it would be wrong to take view that it would be wrong to take out part three at this stage. And I say that for procedural reasons, if we took out part three, in effect, we would send it back to the other place without part three in it and they would reinstate it. And I fail to see at what point we would be able to do all the things that we've just been talking about.
And we will go on to talk about, which is to revise part three so that we can do our job, which is to take all the most harmful aspects of part three out and put improvements
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in. I'm so sorry. I don't know if I'm allowed to shout at him again. I'm allowed to shout at him again. What? What are they revising? Tell me what they're advising. They're not revising anything. They're not revising anything. They're intransigent. They refuse to listen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So why? Why are we even trying? I think I understand what the. Noble Lady is saying, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady is saying, and I think part three is so devastating. But I'm not going to do Second Reading speech because I was pretty
16:36
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
Reading speech because I was pretty critical then. What I will say about the amendments here, I particularly like 174. I think that I also support the amendment on annual reporting on the best available scientific evidence. I think it's just worth considering. I do agree entirely. We have to have the scientific evidence, but one of the issues that Natural England has regularly been criticised for in terms of development is, for example, when we come to offshore wind farms, of which the government is very clear, it believes is absolutely vital in terms of achieving net zero or indeed decarbonising electricity by 2030.
But it is the situation where developers are then asked to do at least two seasons of what impact there will be on birds and elements like that. That is one of the key reasons why so many projects get delayed, is the extent of the evidence required in order to satisfy the decisions, and having been Secretary of State for Defra and in charge of the R&D budget, I can assure you every scientist will keep saying there's a gap in the evidence when they want more money.
So I'm not complaining about that, but I think we need to make sure that we have appropriate evidence. We shouldn't ignore the science, but to continue to try and say the best available means. Actually, we could be here a very long time. That might be to the benefit that some people wish to achieve, but I think we definitely need proper science evidence. But we have to balance how much what is ever going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to be the best available. Given what we said on amendment 30, these benches definitely support the principle that we should be basing evidence on the best available scientific evidence.
But it is the situation where developers are then asked to do at least two seasons of what impact there will be on birds and elements like that. That is one of the key reasons why so many projects get delayed, is the extent of the evidence required in order to satisfy the decisions, and having been Secretary of State for Defra and in charge of the R&D budget, I can assure you every scientist will keep saying there's a gap in the evidence when they want more money.
So I'm not complaining about that, but I think we need to make sure that we have appropriate evidence. We shouldn't ignore the science, but to continue to try and say the best available means. Actually, we could be here a very long time. That might be to the benefit that some people wish to achieve, but I think we definitely need proper science evidence. But we have to balance how much what is ever going
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to be the best available. Given what we said on amendment 30, these benches definitely support the principle that we should be basing evidence on the best available scientific evidence.
16:38
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
best available scientific evidence. In principle, we certainly support amendment. One. Three. One. I also think it it picks up on the point that we made earlier by the noble Baroness Lady Lea Freeman indeed, at earlier stages by Lord Krebs that the best scientific evidence isn't always just modelling, it's around actual evidence on the ground and therefore we will move on later to another which talk about the necessity for the evidence based around the baseline that we have at the moment. And therefore, as I say, we support the idea in principle, but we think actually the framework for the consideration of that scientific evidence is actually as important.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I. Rise to. Talk to 131 but before I do so,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Talk to 131 but before I do so, I'd like to address comments to noble Lady Baroness Jones because I am persuaded by the comments that my colleague, my.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my colleague, my. Noble friend. Lord Lansley said, we are not the elected House. The government
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I. Rise to. Talk to 131 but before I do so,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Talk to 131 but before I do so, I'd like to address comments to noble Lady Baroness Jones because I am persuaded by the comments that my colleague, my.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my colleague, my. Noble friend. Lord Lansley said, we are not the elected House. The government
16:39
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
the elected House. The government is entitled to bring their legislation through, and I, and I am persuaded that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To have removed part. Three entirely from the. Bill. Would have emasculated it to the extent it would have become mute.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
extent it would have become mute. But I am, but I do think, and I only wish, that Baroness. Jones had.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Jones had. Acknowledged, that the thumping majority given for the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
majority given for the amendment 131, in the name of Baroness Somerton, 130. I'm sorry.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry. Has has meant. That I think we've got the best. Of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A bad job. And so to suggest that the conservatives and other members of this House have somehow sat on their hands or purged
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sat on their hands or purged themselves or somehow just not the w to turn. To the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the. Substance of one. Of course, we believe in the essential of having believe in the essential of having the best advice. I will not repeat the speech I gave at committee stage, but Noble. Lords will stage, but Noble. Lords will remember I was very exercised with the misleading way in which Natural England had wilfully misrepresented England had wilfully misrepresented the science that they said supported their position, but didn't. You will recall that they didn't. You will recall that they sent me a pamphlet with all sorts of scientific references at the bottom, which I read, and no bottom, which I read, and no scientific references totally refuted the Natural England position.
So all I would say is on 1.31. Getting the scientific evidence is one thing, but we've got to get the advice right as well. And I do feel there is a problem with this bill, because what it does is make not really address the conflict of interest that Natural England is simultaneously the adviser, the regulator, the operator, the price setter. And if the Secretary of State to the earlier group that I listened very carefully to what the noble Lady of the minister said, the Secretary of State is not persuaded, well, is going to rely on advice, but rely advice given by Natural England, which in my view has not demonstrated that it meets the the standard that you would expect.
So I think the key thing is this we are about to place into statute what is an obvious conflict of interest between a regulator and an adviser. And that's we should really eliminate that by insisting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On. A separation of powers. We've got the duty to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, but we are conflicts of interest, but we are about to embed one in statute. And I do think that I would invite the I do think that I would invite the noble lady, the minister, just to reflect for a moment whether it is right that Natural England is to be the judge, jury and executioner in their own court, and whether there their own court, and whether there might be some sort of device whereby the Secretary of State can take other advice into account rather than that of Natural England.
Because because they are so conflicted and their track record conflicted and their track record is not good.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is not good. My Lords, amendments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To have removed part. Three entirely from the. Bill. Would have emasculated it to the extent it would have become mute.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
extent it would have become mute. But I am, but I do think, and I only wish, that Baroness. Jones had.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Jones had. Acknowledged, that the thumping majority given for the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
majority given for the amendment 131, in the name of Baroness Somerton, 130. I'm sorry.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry. Has has meant. That I think we've got the best. Of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A bad job. And so to suggest that the conservatives and other members of this House have somehow sat on their hands or purged
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sat on their hands or purged themselves or somehow just not the w to turn. To the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To the. Substance of one. Of course, we believe in the essential of having believe in the essential of having the best advice. I will not repeat the speech I gave at committee stage, but Noble. Lords will stage, but Noble. Lords will remember I was very exercised with the misleading way in which Natural England had wilfully misrepresented England had wilfully misrepresented the science that they said supported their position, but didn't. You will recall that they didn't. You will recall that they sent me a pamphlet with all sorts of scientific references at the bottom, which I read, and no bottom, which I read, and no scientific references totally refuted the Natural England position.
So all I would say is on 1.31. Getting the scientific evidence is one thing, but we've got to get the advice right as well. And I do feel there is a problem with this bill, because what it does is make not really address the conflict of interest that Natural England is simultaneously the adviser, the regulator, the operator, the price setter. And if the Secretary of State to the earlier group that I listened very carefully to what the noble Lady of the minister said, the Secretary of State is not persuaded, well, is going to rely on advice, but rely advice given by Natural England, which in my view has not demonstrated that it meets the the standard that you would expect.
So I think the key thing is this we are about to place into statute what is an obvious conflict of interest between a regulator and an adviser. And that's we should really eliminate that by insisting.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On. A separation of powers. We've got the duty to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, but we are conflicts of interest, but we are about to embed one in statute. And I do think that I would invite the I do think that I would invite the noble lady, the minister, just to reflect for a moment whether it is right that Natural England is to be the judge, jury and executioner in their own court, and whether there their own court, and whether there might be some sort of device whereby the Secretary of State can take other advice into account rather than that of Natural England.
Because because they are so conflicted and their track record conflicted and their track record is not good.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
is not good. My Lords, amendments
16:42
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, amendments 131137151152156157 and 174. Tabled by Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra would add additional requirements to the preparation and reporting of Edps. And while the government shares the Noble Lords desire to ensure that the EDP process is robust, I can assure noble Lords that these matters are already captured through the drafting and amplified by the government's amendments to part three. We have included an explicit provision requiring both Natural England and the Secretary of State to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP.
I do take the noble Baroness Lady Coffey's point about evidence over time, and some of the issues that occur, and maybe even conflicting evidence, but I hope that the best available scientific evidence. The phrase that's used there will give both the Secretary of State and Natural England the support they need to ensure that this is proportionate. It needs to be considered as the best available scientific evidence regarding reporting, as well as the midpoint and end point reports on each EDP. Natural England will publish annual reports across the NRF with a summary of their accounts, including setting out the total amount received in levy payments and the amount spent on conservation measures.
This is on top of the individual monitoring that Natural England will put in place to monitor the delivery and impact of conservation measures, and I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord. Fuller's points about Natural England. In addition, these amendments will require Natural England to report on the impact of conservation measures on the local economy and on the community. The bill already requires public consultation, which will provide the opportunity for people to raise such matters, which will be considered by the Secretary of State when making an EDP.
And while we share the Noble Lords desire to support local communities, it would not be appropriate and would add a significant burden to require Natural England to report on how each conservation measure is affecting the local economy. The final limb of these amendments will make it mandatory for the levy regulations to cover various matters currently specified as those the Secretary of State may cover. I can assure noble Lords this is unnecessary, as while we would not propose to mandate for these, we fully expect the Secretary of State to make provision in these areas.
I hope with these explanations and assurances, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, amendments 131137151152156157 and 174. Tabled by Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra would add additional requirements to the preparation and reporting of Edps. And while the government shares the Noble Lords desire to ensure that the EDP process is robust, I can assure noble Lords that these matters are already captured through the drafting and amplified by the government's amendments to part three. We have included an explicit provision requiring both Natural England and the Secretary of State to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP.
I do take the noble Baroness Lady Coffey's point about evidence over time, and some of the issues that occur, and maybe even conflicting evidence, but I hope that the best available scientific evidence. The phrase that's used there will give both the Secretary of State and Natural England the support they need to ensure that this is proportionate. It needs to be considered as the best available scientific evidence regarding reporting, as well as the midpoint and end point reports on each EDP. Natural England will publish annual reports across the NRF with a summary of their accounts, including setting out the total amount received in levy payments and the amount spent on conservation measures.
This is on top of the individual monitoring that Natural England will put in place to monitor the delivery and impact of conservation measures, and I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord. Fuller's points about Natural England. In addition, these amendments will require Natural England to report on the impact of conservation measures on the local economy and on the community. The bill already requires public consultation, which will provide the opportunity for people to raise such matters, which will be considered by the Secretary of State when making an EDP.
And while we share the Noble Lords desire to support local communities, it would not be appropriate and would add a significant burden to require Natural England to report on how each conservation measure is affecting the local economy. The final limb of these amendments will make it mandatory for the levy regulations to cover various matters currently specified as those the Secretary of State may cover. I can assure noble Lords this is unnecessary, as while we would not propose to mandate for these, we fully expect the Secretary of State to make provision in these areas.
I hope with these explanations and assurances, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
16:44
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for responding to my amendments in this group. I must say, I am not entirely happy and do look forward to returning to this subject in later groups, particularly the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Parminter to the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I understand entirely her sentiments and frustration, and I am most grateful that she did sign my amendments. We on these benches are committed to be a constructive opposition and work with the House in the most effective way possible to improve part three.
Many of us object to this, this part of the bill fervently in its current form, and we are looking for the best outcome for the country as a whole to release houses for building, but at the same time to protect and enhance nature. The noble Baroness remains my friend and I hope she will eventually forgive me. And in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw. Is it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. Be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moved. Government amendment 133. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, turning now to a series of government amendments that ensure the the NRF properly
Many of us object to this, this part of the bill fervently in its current form, and we are looking for the best outcome for the country as a whole to release houses for building, but at the same time to protect and enhance nature. The noble Baroness remains my friend and I hope she will eventually forgive me. And in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw. Is it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment. Be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moved. Government amendment 133. Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, turning now to a series of government amendments that ensure the the NRF properly
16:46
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 ensure the the NRF properly manages any potential cross-border effects and operates as intended in relation to Ramsar sites as well as in the marine context. Turning first to our cross-border related amendments, I would like to assure noble Lords that while numerous these are technical amendments that reflect our discussions with the devolved administrations to address circumstances where an environmental feature of an EDP may relate to a protected site, that is in Scotland or Wales. Drawing out the key amendments, Government amendment 133 ensures that where an EDP relates to a protected site that is not wholly in England, then an EDP may not use network measures to address these impacts.
Government amendment 136 simply defines England for the purpose of this clause as including its marine context. This is in line with the devolution settlements, as it would not be appropriate for a plan developed to address the impact of development in England to allow for potential impact on a site in Scotland or Wales, even where this would lead to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature. In line with this close working and coordination, Government Amendment 145 will require Natural England to seek the advice of Natural Resource Body for Wales, whose operating name is Natural Resources Wales, and Scottish Natural Heritage, whose operating name is NatureScot, as well as the relevant devolved ministers.
Where the environmental feature in a draft EDP relates to a protected site in Wales or Scotland respectively. Government amendment 149 specifies that Wales and Scotland, for these purposes encompasses the territorial waters adjacent to Wales and Scotland, as is the case in respect of England in Part three, my Lords Ramsar sites are international, internationally significant wetlands which play a vital role in promoting biodiversity and climate resilience. Through this bill, we are putting Ramsar protections on a legislative footing to ensure that the Nature Restoration Fund can be used to address negative effects of development on Ramsar sites.
This will allow development to come forward more quickly while securing better outcomes for nature, making building quicker and simpler. To date, these sites have been subject to the HRA process in the same way as habitat sites as a matter of policy. So the vast majority of cases, there will be very little change to how the HRA process is applied to these sites. However, these changes will place the existing policy protections for Ramsar sites on a statutory footing, providing clarity for developers where Ramsar and habitat sites overlap and assessment requirements may otherwise diverge, as well as ensuring we continue to meet our international obligations under the Ramsar Convention.
These government amendments ensure the Nature Restoration Fund can operate as intended for Ramsar sites. Previously, the bill referred to Ramsar sites in England, which would have meant that when assessing a plan or project in England, a competent authority would not have been subject to a statutory requirement to consider possible impacts on Ramsar sites in Wales and Scotland. This would also have placed new obligations on competent authorities in Wales, which was not our policy intention. I hope noble Lords will agree this is a helpful step forward in firming up the protections for our most precious wetlands.
My Lords Government Amendment 231 is technical in nature and has been drafted to ensure that the bill is fully operable within the marine context. With marine conservation zones now treated as protected sites for the purposes of part three. It is necessary to make limited exceptions to certain provisions in the Marine and Coastal Access Act that are intended to restrict activities impacting these areas. This is to, for example, ensure that Natural England can carry out conservation measures benefiting these important marine sites without risk of breaching existing legislative requirements.
This will apply only to Natural England and other public authorities, carrying out functions relating to the Nature Restoration Fund in the marine context. And finally, Government Amendment 255 is a very minor drafting correction to ensure the extent provisions reflect amendments made to clause 46 at Lords Committee. This amendment removes a stray reference to provisions of that clause which were left out in committee. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
therefore hope the House agrees to accept these amendments and I beg to move. Amendment proposed in clause 55.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed in clause 55. Page 92. Line nine after site. Insert. That is wholly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In England. Noble Earls.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Earls. First of all, I would like to associate these benches with the best wishes to Baroness Hayman and
Government amendment 136 simply defines England for the purpose of this clause as including its marine context. This is in line with the devolution settlements, as it would not be appropriate for a plan developed to address the impact of development in England to allow for potential impact on a site in Scotland or Wales, even where this would lead to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature. In line with this close working and coordination, Government Amendment 145 will require Natural England to seek the advice of Natural Resource Body for Wales, whose operating name is Natural Resources Wales, and Scottish Natural Heritage, whose operating name is NatureScot, as well as the relevant devolved ministers.
Where the environmental feature in a draft EDP relates to a protected site in Wales or Scotland respectively. Government amendment 149 specifies that Wales and Scotland, for these purposes encompasses the territorial waters adjacent to Wales and Scotland, as is the case in respect of England in Part three, my Lords Ramsar sites are international, internationally significant wetlands which play a vital role in promoting biodiversity and climate resilience. Through this bill, we are putting Ramsar protections on a legislative footing to ensure that the Nature Restoration Fund can be used to address negative effects of development on Ramsar sites.
This will allow development to come forward more quickly while securing better outcomes for nature, making building quicker and simpler. To date, these sites have been subject to the HRA process in the same way as habitat sites as a matter of policy. So the vast majority of cases, there will be very little change to how the HRA process is applied to these sites. However, these changes will place the existing policy protections for Ramsar sites on a statutory footing, providing clarity for developers where Ramsar and habitat sites overlap and assessment requirements may otherwise diverge, as well as ensuring we continue to meet our international obligations under the Ramsar Convention.
These government amendments ensure the Nature Restoration Fund can operate as intended for Ramsar sites. Previously, the bill referred to Ramsar sites in England, which would have meant that when assessing a plan or project in England, a competent authority would not have been subject to a statutory requirement to consider possible impacts on Ramsar sites in Wales and Scotland. This would also have placed new obligations on competent authorities in Wales, which was not our policy intention. I hope noble Lords will agree this is a helpful step forward in firming up the protections for our most precious wetlands.
My Lords Government Amendment 231 is technical in nature and has been drafted to ensure that the bill is fully operable within the marine context. With marine conservation zones now treated as protected sites for the purposes of part three. It is necessary to make limited exceptions to certain provisions in the Marine and Coastal Access Act that are intended to restrict activities impacting these areas. This is to, for example, ensure that Natural England can carry out conservation measures benefiting these important marine sites without risk of breaching existing legislative requirements.
This will apply only to Natural England and other public authorities, carrying out functions relating to the Nature Restoration Fund in the marine context. And finally, Government Amendment 255 is a very minor drafting correction to ensure the extent provisions reflect amendments made to clause 46 at Lords Committee. This amendment removes a stray reference to provisions of that clause which were left out in committee. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
therefore hope the House agrees to accept these amendments and I beg to move. Amendment proposed in clause 55.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed in clause 55. Page 92. Line nine after site. Insert. That is wholly.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In England. Noble Earls.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Earls. First of all, I would like to associate these benches with the best wishes to Baroness Hayman and
16:51
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
best wishes to Baroness Hayman and we hope her better soon. We did. 1 or 2 of us did spot her coming in this morning and attempting to struggle in. And that therefore means that this the noble Lady the Minister has taken up a whole raft of amendments which he was not expecting to lead on at the start of today. And so we thank her for picking up on this as well. Obviously, this is a kind of comprehensive suite of technical amendments inasmuch as we are wrapping our heads around it, the we, as you know, firm Federalists obviously welcome the consultation across borders, particularly on one, four five and one two, three, mandating specific consultation requirements on Natural England proper cross-border consultation is the baseline requirement for sensible environmental policy.
We're going to watch with a little bit of care with regard to the marine and coastal access, and are simply wondering, I wonder if we can ask this question. This required removal of existing environmental checks, suggest to us that the EDP framework risks some kind of weakening of protection. So we will be watching this particular part with some care. And we of course welcome the schedule six part where the the series of a whole suite of amendments explicitly amends the Habitats Regulations 2017 to treat Ramsar sites more like European sites, requiring an appropriate assessment for plans or projects situated wholly in England that are likely to have a significant effect on Ramsar site.
Extending these statutory protections to these important, internationally important wetlands is a move towards a more robust nature safeguard. So on the whole, with this suite of amendments that we've taken a look at, we welcome them
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and we've got 1 or 2 ones to watch in this. My Lords I to personally wish the noble Lady Baroness Hayman a the noble Lady Baroness Hayman a speedy recovery. We both endure long journeys on the West Coast Main Line with Avanti, and that's enough to make any of us ill on any occasion. My Lords. As we've said throughout the passage of this bill, governments should not, as a rule, governments should not, as a rule, introduce amendments to their own legislation that are not in response to scrutiny of the bill.
We've been disappointed by the government's approach to this bill, government's approach to this bill, and as many noble Lords have said, there is a reason for our procedures in this House and amendments should be debated at amendments should be debated at committee stage wherever possible, before the House is asked to make a decision on the report stage. decision on the report stage. Turning to the amendments in this group, these mostly rate to circumstances touching on the devolved regions of the UK. We devolved regions of the UK.
We understand these changes have been discussed with devolved authorities and are content with them. The only area where we have particular concerns is on the government amendments in respect of protections for Ramsar sites, and protections for Ramsar sites, and my noble friend has set out the official opposition's view in an earlier group. I'll just briefly say we do not think the government say we do not think the government is right to introduce clause 90 and schedule six through this bill, as they will now effectively block new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they will now effectively block new homes rather than unlocking development. Opportunity. One of the amendments, which I now can't find amendments, which I now can't find at the number of, has substituted all Ramsar sites for certain Ramsar sites. So could the noble Lady the Minister clarify why certain Ramsar sites are being excluded? Whereas before all Ramsar sites were within this scope of the Bill.
We're going to watch with a little bit of care with regard to the marine and coastal access, and are simply wondering, I wonder if we can ask this question. This required removal of existing environmental checks, suggest to us that the EDP framework risks some kind of weakening of protection. So we will be watching this particular part with some care. And we of course welcome the schedule six part where the the series of a whole suite of amendments explicitly amends the Habitats Regulations 2017 to treat Ramsar sites more like European sites, requiring an appropriate assessment for plans or projects situated wholly in England that are likely to have a significant effect on Ramsar site.
Extending these statutory protections to these important, internationally important wetlands is a move towards a more robust nature safeguard. So on the whole, with this suite of amendments that we've taken a look at, we welcome them
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and we've got 1 or 2 ones to watch in this. My Lords I to personally wish the noble Lady Baroness Hayman a the noble Lady Baroness Hayman a speedy recovery. We both endure long journeys on the West Coast Main Line with Avanti, and that's enough to make any of us ill on any occasion. My Lords. As we've said throughout the passage of this bill, governments should not, as a rule, governments should not, as a rule, introduce amendments to their own legislation that are not in response to scrutiny of the bill.
We've been disappointed by the government's approach to this bill, government's approach to this bill, and as many noble Lords have said, there is a reason for our procedures in this House and amendments should be debated at amendments should be debated at committee stage wherever possible, before the House is asked to make a decision on the report stage. decision on the report stage. Turning to the amendments in this group, these mostly rate to circumstances touching on the devolved regions of the UK. We devolved regions of the UK.
We understand these changes have been discussed with devolved authorities and are content with them. The only area where we have particular concerns is on the government amendments in respect of protections for Ramsar sites, and protections for Ramsar sites, and my noble friend has set out the official opposition's view in an earlier group. I'll just briefly say we do not think the government say we do not think the government is right to introduce clause 90 and schedule six through this bill, as they will now effectively block new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
they will now effectively block new homes rather than unlocking development. Opportunity. One of the amendments, which I now can't find amendments, which I now can't find at the number of, has substituted all Ramsar sites for certain Ramsar sites. So could the noble Lady the Minister clarify why certain Ramsar sites are being excluded? Whereas before all Ramsar sites were within this scope of the Bill.
16:54
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 hope I can respond to both the noble Earl Lord Blencathra and the noble Lady McIntosh Baroness McIntosh. The government's approach to placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance. Now, noble Lords will be aware of a recent Supreme Court judgement. Some may wish to oppose this and continue with the existing approach of protecting Ramsar sites through policy.
I know there's been an attempt by some to cast the government as blocking development, but the reality is that no new planning applications will be affected by placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing. Any outline or full planning permissions that have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality in 2020 will have had to consider the impact of Ramsar sites from the outset. That's why for most developers, this will actually be an advantage. It also means they can use an EDP to discharge obligations relating to Ramsar sites, which they couldn't without putting them on a statutory footing.
So we continue to support development that faces challenges in meeting the obligations. And I would highlight that government has invested £110 million to support local authorities to deliver local nutrient mitigation schemes, to allow housing to come forward in areas affected by nutrient neutrality. The NRF is an evolution of this support and will deliver on the government's manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports development while driving the recovery of these internationally important wetland sites. I'm sorry I've realised I haven't answered the noble Baroness McIntosh question.
I will reply to her in writing on that if that's OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grateful. Just for clarification, I had the amendment in front of me. I had the amendment in front of me. It is actually amendment 210 which originally said leave out Ramsar sites in England and insert certain sites in England and insert certain Ramsar sites. What is worrying is it goes on to say we should look at the explanatory statement to the explanatory statement to government amendment on page. Is it page 180 of the bill to which she refers? Because there is no page 180 of the of the amendment.
So 180 of the of the amendment. So it's difficult to know which page 180 refers to, to better understand
**** Possible New Speaker ****
180 refers to, to better understand the amendment. The question.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question. Is that this amendment be agreed to as many. Of that opinion, say 'content' contrary not content. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Contents have it. We now move. To Group. Ten. Amendment 134. Lord Fuller my Lords. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Fuller my Lords. Amendment 134 seeks to ensure that the conservation measures envisaged by this Bill are actually delivered this Bill are actually delivered for the liability period. Now, the premise of the bill is that the premise of the bill is that the EDPs, the sum of money, is paid for a government endorsed plan, which will last for ten years, on the will last for ten years, on the understanding that compensatory conservation measures will be provided elsewhere. But the problem is that, on one hand, the EDP lasts for ten years.
But the obligations, on the other hand, are for conservation measures to to last a 30 years in the case of biodiversity net gain, and 80 years in the case of nutrient neutrality. There's a clear disconnect here, and that undermines the value and enforceability as it's cleared up. And this bill should do that. Let's say you're a developer. Let's say you're prepared to palm off your obligations to address nutrient neutrality to a provider. And let's say you pay Natural England or its affiliates a fee to assume those liabilities in your place for 80 years, the perpetuity period.
Now that money you pay has to last for the practical delivery of the conservation measures for that entire period. It's quite an onerous commitment. Each year the grass may need to be cut, ditches dredged, fences mended, and sampling and monitoring undertaken. So what happens for the 70 years that follow the initial ten year period from years ten, 11 to 18, I would have expected the bill to have had some hints, but it doesn't. Moving on. How might those liabilities be valued? Because without value nothing can be delivered.
And my Lords, I think this is an actuarial problem. It will the value will obviously depend on the annual cost of providing the measures over 80 years in the case of nutrient neutrality, discounted back to present value and that. Right. And that price will partly depend on the opportunity cost of the money for the period linked to the long term gilt rate, any one off set up charges and might include inspection fees, renewal fees and
I know there's been an attempt by some to cast the government as blocking development, but the reality is that no new planning applications will be affected by placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing. Any outline or full planning permissions that have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality in 2020 will have had to consider the impact of Ramsar sites from the outset. That's why for most developers, this will actually be an advantage. It also means they can use an EDP to discharge obligations relating to Ramsar sites, which they couldn't without putting them on a statutory footing.
So we continue to support development that faces challenges in meeting the obligations. And I would highlight that government has invested £110 million to support local authorities to deliver local nutrient mitigation schemes, to allow housing to come forward in areas affected by nutrient neutrality. The NRF is an evolution of this support and will deliver on the government's manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports development while driving the recovery of these internationally important wetland sites. I'm sorry I've realised I haven't answered the noble Baroness McIntosh question.
I will reply to her in writing on that if that's OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Grateful. Just for clarification, I had the amendment in front of me. I had the amendment in front of me. It is actually amendment 210 which originally said leave out Ramsar sites in England and insert certain sites in England and insert certain Ramsar sites. What is worrying is it goes on to say we should look at the explanatory statement to the explanatory statement to government amendment on page. Is it page 180 of the bill to which she refers? Because there is no page 180 of the of the amendment.
So 180 of the of the amendment. So it's difficult to know which page 180 refers to, to better understand
**** Possible New Speaker ****
180 refers to, to better understand the amendment. The question.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question. Is that this amendment be agreed to as many. Of that opinion, say 'content' contrary not content. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Contents have it. We now move. To Group. Ten. Amendment 134. Lord Fuller my Lords. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Fuller my Lords. Amendment 134 seeks to ensure that the conservation measures envisaged by this Bill are actually delivered this Bill are actually delivered for the liability period. Now, the premise of the bill is that the premise of the bill is that the EDPs, the sum of money, is paid for a government endorsed plan, which will last for ten years, on the will last for ten years, on the understanding that compensatory conservation measures will be provided elsewhere. But the problem is that, on one hand, the EDP lasts for ten years.
But the obligations, on the other hand, are for conservation measures to to last a 30 years in the case of biodiversity net gain, and 80 years in the case of nutrient neutrality. There's a clear disconnect here, and that undermines the value and enforceability as it's cleared up. And this bill should do that. Let's say you're a developer. Let's say you're prepared to palm off your obligations to address nutrient neutrality to a provider. And let's say you pay Natural England or its affiliates a fee to assume those liabilities in your place for 80 years, the perpetuity period.
Now that money you pay has to last for the practical delivery of the conservation measures for that entire period. It's quite an onerous commitment. Each year the grass may need to be cut, ditches dredged, fences mended, and sampling and monitoring undertaken. So what happens for the 70 years that follow the initial ten year period from years ten, 11 to 18, I would have expected the bill to have had some hints, but it doesn't. Moving on. How might those liabilities be valued? Because without value nothing can be delivered.
And my Lords, I think this is an actuarial problem. It will the value will obviously depend on the annual cost of providing the measures over 80 years in the case of nutrient neutrality, discounted back to present value and that. Right. And that price will partly depend on the opportunity cost of the money for the period linked to the long term gilt rate, any one off set up charges and might include inspection fees, renewal fees and
17:00
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
the more frequent of which the more expensive they will be. The valuation is important because unless there's sufficiency, there can be no guarantees that the conservation measures that the developer has purchased will developer has purchased will actually be delivered. And on the bill, all this is silent. Now, bill, all this is silent. Now, pricing aside, I spoke at committee about the enforceability of the conservation measures contemplated by the EDP that the House builder has purchased. So I now want to focus on those not who's who will focus on those not who's who will deliver the conservation measures which have been paid for and the enforceability of those measures.
enforceability of those measures. This isn't something that can be left to Natural England to make up as they go along, as they have done as they go along, as they have done so so far, working at a snail's pace, chopping and changing as they go. That's no way to address a go. That's no way to address a generational requirement. It needs to be on the face of the bill, so that any measures that need to be that any measures that need to be secured for as long as it takes in a structure that transcends the normal lifespan of a company or a partnership.
And of course, there are ways of recognising these legal obligations, either in contract or obligations, either in contract or by a charge or covenant at the Land Registry. And all of these are enforceable. But land registry enforceable. But land registry claims in particular require the lottery of a court or a tribunal case. And my Lords, I ask, who's going to be bothered in 75 years? In the year 20,100, to litigate in court the end of five years of a nutrient neutrality deal that may get off the ground next spring, or even, for that matter, in 25 years.
That is, if the operator hasn't run out of money and gone bust in the meantime. So it's important that the obligations to deliver these measures are recorded in a form that can go the distance and be enforced without the uncertainty of litigation. So this is where the section 106 agreement comes in. A section 106 agreement is a legal contract between the the state and the developer that's tied to a planning permission. It requires the developer, inter alia, the provider, to provide or fund the benefits to mitigate the impact of new development.
They are legally enforceable and breaches can be subject to the criminal law. So the obligation doesn't die, say with the bankruptcy or failure of the operator is attached to the land, it is permanent. So we'll all be gone in 80 years. But the obligation to deliver on the promises we are making here today in this chamber will persist. And that should be exercising us. But none of it's in the bill. None of it's contemplated by the bill, and it should be ringing alarm bells that the body that's meant to be advising ministers hasn't got it into the bill, either.
Without enforcement, the public can have no confidence that the conservation measures will be delivered, neither, for those who have ponied up the cash to buy, the mitigations can have conservation either. And how can the purchaser of a new home have confidence that the state won't come knocking on their door for more later on, or worse, that the state will have to step in and provide the tail liabilities with the initial seller having spent the cash on a Lamborghini and disappeared. Now, time does not permit me to talk about the issues I raised at Committee on Permitting and Licensing.
But at its heart, this bill should set the terms of trade what the step in rights will be, what will how will the obligations be enforced? And to my view, it should be set down as section 106 for the reasons I gave now, it surprised me that the legal enforceability that lasts for the entire liability period, whether it be 30 years of biodiversity net gain or 80 years for nutrient neutrality, is is enforced not just for the operators, but their heirs and successors.
And we need certainty these things will be delivered. The builder who bought the obligation, who's bought the the EDP wants to have that comfort. The homeowner needs that comfort. And the residents and the campaigners who are campaigning for EDPs demand that comfort. But none of it's in the bill and it should be. We raise it in detail at committee. There was an opportunity to bring it forward. At this stage it hasn't been. But I say to the noble Lady, the minister, even at this stage, what steps can she, what reassurances can she give us that those provisions will be introduced by Third Reading.
So at least the expectations of the developers, the homeowners and the public can be met and acted on within the context of valuations that work and will stay the course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I assume the noble. Law would like. To move an amendment. To. Move amendment proposed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Move amendment proposed. Clause 55. Page 92. Line 22. And insert. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Words as printed on the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. If I may, I anticipate my noble friend speaking to his amendments 166 and 167. But before he does, so
enforceability of those measures. This isn't something that can be left to Natural England to make up as they go along, as they have done as they go along, as they have done so so far, working at a snail's pace, chopping and changing as they go. That's no way to address a go. That's no way to address a generational requirement. It needs to be on the face of the bill, so that any measures that need to be that any measures that need to be secured for as long as it takes in a structure that transcends the normal lifespan of a company or a partnership.
And of course, there are ways of recognising these legal obligations, either in contract or obligations, either in contract or by a charge or covenant at the Land Registry. And all of these are enforceable. But land registry enforceable. But land registry claims in particular require the lottery of a court or a tribunal case. And my Lords, I ask, who's going to be bothered in 75 years? In the year 20,100, to litigate in court the end of five years of a nutrient neutrality deal that may get off the ground next spring, or even, for that matter, in 25 years.
That is, if the operator hasn't run out of money and gone bust in the meantime. So it's important that the obligations to deliver these measures are recorded in a form that can go the distance and be enforced without the uncertainty of litigation. So this is where the section 106 agreement comes in. A section 106 agreement is a legal contract between the the state and the developer that's tied to a planning permission. It requires the developer, inter alia, the provider, to provide or fund the benefits to mitigate the impact of new development.
They are legally enforceable and breaches can be subject to the criminal law. So the obligation doesn't die, say with the bankruptcy or failure of the operator is attached to the land, it is permanent. So we'll all be gone in 80 years. But the obligation to deliver on the promises we are making here today in this chamber will persist. And that should be exercising us. But none of it's in the bill. None of it's contemplated by the bill, and it should be ringing alarm bells that the body that's meant to be advising ministers hasn't got it into the bill, either.
Without enforcement, the public can have no confidence that the conservation measures will be delivered, neither, for those who have ponied up the cash to buy, the mitigations can have conservation either. And how can the purchaser of a new home have confidence that the state won't come knocking on their door for more later on, or worse, that the state will have to step in and provide the tail liabilities with the initial seller having spent the cash on a Lamborghini and disappeared. Now, time does not permit me to talk about the issues I raised at Committee on Permitting and Licensing.
But at its heart, this bill should set the terms of trade what the step in rights will be, what will how will the obligations be enforced? And to my view, it should be set down as section 106 for the reasons I gave now, it surprised me that the legal enforceability that lasts for the entire liability period, whether it be 30 years of biodiversity net gain or 80 years for nutrient neutrality, is is enforced not just for the operators, but their heirs and successors.
And we need certainty these things will be delivered. The builder who bought the obligation, who's bought the the EDP wants to have that comfort. The homeowner needs that comfort. And the residents and the campaigners who are campaigning for EDPs demand that comfort. But none of it's in the bill and it should be. We raise it in detail at committee. There was an opportunity to bring it forward. At this stage it hasn't been. But I say to the noble Lady, the minister, even at this stage, what steps can she, what reassurances can she give us that those provisions will be introduced by Third Reading.
So at least the expectations of the developers, the homeowners and the public can be met and acted on within the context of valuations that work and will stay the course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I assume the noble. Law would like. To move an amendment. To. Move amendment proposed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Move amendment proposed. Clause 55. Page 92. Line 22. And insert. The.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. Words as printed on the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. If I may, I anticipate my noble friend speaking to his amendments 166 and 167. But before he does, so
17:04
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
166 and 167. But before he does, so can I just say, without reiterating the exchange, that the Minister and I had on the question of the way in which clause 55 1AB should be used, can I just say, my noble friend, by putting into into schedule four, that the environmental impacts must be those identified in in an environmental delivery plan deals with what would otherwise be a potentially serious problem because the Minister continues in clause 55 to allow for the possibility of environmental impacts resulting from a development having a negative effect on a protected feature, but which are not to be included and identified in the EDP.
My noble friend in 166 and 167 My noble friend in 166 and 167 would rectify exactly that problem. My Lords, I thank my noble friend
My noble friend in 166 and 167 My noble friend in 166 and 167 would rectify exactly that problem. My Lords, I thank my noble friend
17:06
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
Lord Fuller for moving this group. These amendments are technical changes to how EDPs work changes to how EDPs work practically. My amendments 166 and 167 would ensure that only impacts 167 would ensure that only impacts addressed by the EDP may be disregarded for the purposes of the Habitats regulations, and I agree Habitats regulations, and I agree entirely with my Noble friends Lord Lansley. I'm very grateful for his comments. In fact, we think this is comments. In fact, we think this is in line with the government's plans and really are seeking to be constructive with these amendments.
Can the noble Baroness Minister please explain why the government please explain why the government is not willing to accept these constructive and specific amendments? Turning to amendments amendments? Turning to amendments 134 and 135, amendment 134. In the name of my noble friend. Lord Fuller is also seeking to Fuller is also seeking to strengthen the government's measures and we will listen carefully to the noble Baroness the Minister's reply. Finally, my Minister's reply. Finally, my amendments one three, five is another amendment seeking clarity on the face of the bill.
We are on the face of the bill. We are disappointed the government have not seen the merit of our case and would have preferred to see this clearly set out in law. I do entirely agree with my Noble friend Lord Fuller on his questions and comments about the timing of Vdps, comments about the timing of Vdps, and how they really can be effective in within the ten year period specified, and I very much period specified, and I very much look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister's reply.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'll turn first to amendment 134, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Fuller, which would Lord Lord Fuller, which would require conservation measures delivered by a landholding to be secured solely through section 106
Can the noble Baroness Minister please explain why the government please explain why the government is not willing to accept these constructive and specific amendments? Turning to amendments amendments? Turning to amendments 134 and 135, amendment 134. In the name of my noble friend. Lord Fuller is also seeking to Fuller is also seeking to strengthen the government's measures and we will listen carefully to the noble Baroness the Minister's reply. Finally, my Minister's reply. Finally, my amendments one three, five is another amendment seeking clarity on the face of the bill.
We are on the face of the bill. We are disappointed the government have not seen the merit of our case and would have preferred to see this clearly set out in law. I do entirely agree with my Noble friend Lord Fuller on his questions and comments about the timing of Vdps, comments about the timing of Vdps, and how they really can be effective in within the ten year period specified, and I very much period specified, and I very much look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister's reply.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'll turn first to amendment 134, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Fuller, which would Lord Lord Fuller, which would require conservation measures delivered by a landholding to be secured solely through section 106
17:06
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)
secured solely through section 106 agreements. The noble Lords stated intention is to ensure that conservation measures are secured through a sufficiently enforceable mechanism. While we fully agree with the noble Lord that we need sufficient certainty to ensure conservation measures are delivered, I hope to reassure him that his amendment is not necessary. The NRF represents a shift towards a more strategic approach to dealing with environmental impacts of development. Once an EDP is made, it will be for Natural England to secure the necessary conservation measures and to ensure that they are in place, monitored and effective.
Some of some conservation measures may require Natural England to acquire land, but where they do so, requiring them to unilaterally enter into a section 106 planning obligation would be inappropriate. For most, this would be an odd use of a section 106. Many conservation measures, such as wetlands, will not require planning permission. Therefore, it is unlikely that a section 106 agreement between Natural England and the local planning authority would be needed. What this amendment suggests is required is more likely to be a species of unilateral undertaking by Natural England one which would unnecessarily restrict their latitude to deliver conservation measures flexibly.
It would reduce the scope for Natural England to modify their approach, where doing so would be within what was approved by the EDP, and deliver more effectively for the environmental feature. Similarly, it could stop land being used for overlapping purposes. Ultimately, it will be important that Natural England can implement whichever conservation measures they consider most effective, while still being bound by the need for measures to be sufficient to meet the overall improvement test. And it does put the focus on the overall improvement test.
Recognising the shift in approach under this model, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment 135 Read.table from committee by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra in respect of the use of planning conditions as conservation measures in previous debates, I've been clear on the importance of planning conditions to ensure that developers are taking appropriate action to avoid impact in advance of other conservation measures being delivered. These conditions will form part of the draft EDP and will be consulted on, which will ensure developers are fully aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise an EDP.
I would also re-emphasise that the bill will only allow Natural England to request that a condition be imposed on development coming under an EDP. The bill simply would not allow Natural England to request planning conditions to be imposed on any other development other than where that development wishes to rely on an EDP. Turning finally to amendments 166 and 167, also tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough. These amendments were also considered at committee stage, but of course, I'm very happy to try and further clarify the position.
The amendments would amend schedule four, which sets out the effects and EDP has on underlying environmental obligations, establishing that where a developer has committed to pay the levy, the relevant obligation is suitably discharged. Environmental impact is defined within the bill as one or more ways in which the negative effect is likely to be caused by the development. Therefore, the effect of schedule four is already limited only to those impacts. If a development has multiple environmental impacts but only one is covered by the EDP, these other impacts are not affected by schedule four and must still be assessed through the existing system.
This is to ensure that all impacts are considered and features are sufficiently protected, while allowing a more strategic approach where that's appropriate. I trust
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that provides sufficient reassurance for the noble Lord to withdraw noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. Before the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before the. Noble Lady the Minister sits down. Can I just ask then why in down. Can I just ask then why in clause 55, if if all if the environmental impact embraces all of the all of the ways in which a of the all of the ways in which a development might impact negatively on an environmental feature, why on an environmental feature, why does it go on to say, an environmental delivery plan need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature? By definition, that means there may be environmental impacts that are not identified in the EDP, but which yet under schedule 4th May come to be disregarded for habitats
**** Possible New Speaker ****
purposes. I'm sorry, I thought I'd just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry, I thought I'd just clarified that matter. So if only clarified that matter. So if only one is covered by an EDP, the other impacts are not affected by schedule four and have to be assessed through the existing system, and that's to ensure all impacts are considered and that features are sufficiently protected. features are sufficiently protected. Where while you allow that the EDP to cover a more strategic approach.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I apologise. I won't intervene again. I will just say the point. What schedule four says is that the environmental impacts can be disregarded. What the noble Lady the minister is telling us is that the minister is telling us is that those environmental impacts include identified and EDP will be disregarded. We agree. And that's disregarded. We agree. And that's what my noble friend is seeking to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
introduce into the bill. My Lords. I won't press this amendment to a vote. We've got a amendment to a vote. We've got a lot of business to do, but I'm just not convinced that the noble Lady are, inter alia, the Natural England as their advisers, has really understood the importance of getting this contractual, the getting this contractual, the enforceability, the consideration, not just what might happen this year or next year, but in 80 years year or next year, but in 80 years and in the and in the intervening period, there's changes of ownership, succession, a bankruptcy, ownership, succession, a bankruptcy, who knows.
Sale. And the section 106 may not be perfect. And I 106 may not be perfect. And I accept entirely her point about the unilateral undertaking report not unilateral undertaking report not final Third Reading. But I do think the we should come back to this at the we should come back to this at Third Reading, because just leaving it to Natural England my Lords I've been involved in this space for three and a half years as a person of significant interest in Norfolk. Environmental Credits Limited Limited, the company established by all the planning authorities in Norfolk.
We've had to dig deep, take the best advice, really try and gain all the scenarios to ensure ultimately, that the promises made by those people who are delivering these conservation measures can and will be delivered for the entirety of the period. This bill is sufficient because it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
doesn't seek and frame that enforceability. Present at the beginning that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Present at the beginning that you weren't moving this your amendment. So that should be sufficient, considering that we shouldn't be rehearsing the debate yet again.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
yet again. I think the noble Lord I'm going to win now by just saying I hope, and the noble Lady and myself have and the noble Lady and myself have a meeting next week, and I do hope that we can develop this further in that meeting to see whether the government may somehow address these concerns at the throat at the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Third Reading. And at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your. Lordship's pleasure, the amendment be withdrawn?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment be withdrawn? The amendment. Is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 135. Lord Roborough not moved. Not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Amendment 136. Baroness Taylor. Moved formally. The question. Is that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is that. Amendment 136. Be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary not say 'content' the contrary not content the contents have it all, be it very sotto voce. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be it very sotto voce. Amendment 137 Lord Roborough. Not moved. Amendment 138 Lord
Some of some conservation measures may require Natural England to acquire land, but where they do so, requiring them to unilaterally enter into a section 106 planning obligation would be inappropriate. For most, this would be an odd use of a section 106. Many conservation measures, such as wetlands, will not require planning permission. Therefore, it is unlikely that a section 106 agreement between Natural England and the local planning authority would be needed. What this amendment suggests is required is more likely to be a species of unilateral undertaking by Natural England one which would unnecessarily restrict their latitude to deliver conservation measures flexibly.
It would reduce the scope for Natural England to modify their approach, where doing so would be within what was approved by the EDP, and deliver more effectively for the environmental feature. Similarly, it could stop land being used for overlapping purposes. Ultimately, it will be important that Natural England can implement whichever conservation measures they consider most effective, while still being bound by the need for measures to be sufficient to meet the overall improvement test. And it does put the focus on the overall improvement test.
Recognising the shift in approach under this model, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment 135 Read.table from committee by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra in respect of the use of planning conditions as conservation measures in previous debates, I've been clear on the importance of planning conditions to ensure that developers are taking appropriate action to avoid impact in advance of other conservation measures being delivered. These conditions will form part of the draft EDP and will be consulted on, which will ensure developers are fully aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise an EDP.
I would also re-emphasise that the bill will only allow Natural England to request that a condition be imposed on development coming under an EDP. The bill simply would not allow Natural England to request planning conditions to be imposed on any other development other than where that development wishes to rely on an EDP. Turning finally to amendments 166 and 167, also tabled by the noble Lord Lord Roborough. These amendments were also considered at committee stage, but of course, I'm very happy to try and further clarify the position.
The amendments would amend schedule four, which sets out the effects and EDP has on underlying environmental obligations, establishing that where a developer has committed to pay the levy, the relevant obligation is suitably discharged. Environmental impact is defined within the bill as one or more ways in which the negative effect is likely to be caused by the development. Therefore, the effect of schedule four is already limited only to those impacts. If a development has multiple environmental impacts but only one is covered by the EDP, these other impacts are not affected by schedule four and must still be assessed through the existing system.
This is to ensure that all impacts are considered and features are sufficiently protected, while allowing a more strategic approach where that's appropriate. I trust
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that provides sufficient reassurance for the noble Lord to withdraw noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. Before the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Before the. Noble Lady the Minister sits down. Can I just ask then why in down. Can I just ask then why in clause 55, if if all if the environmental impact embraces all of the all of the ways in which a of the all of the ways in which a development might impact negatively on an environmental feature, why on an environmental feature, why does it go on to say, an environmental delivery plan need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature? By definition, that means there may be environmental impacts that are not identified in the EDP, but which yet under schedule 4th May come to be disregarded for habitats
**** Possible New Speaker ****
purposes. I'm sorry, I thought I'd just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm sorry, I thought I'd just clarified that matter. So if only clarified that matter. So if only one is covered by an EDP, the other impacts are not affected by schedule four and have to be assessed through the existing system, and that's to ensure all impacts are considered and that features are sufficiently protected. features are sufficiently protected. Where while you allow that the EDP to cover a more strategic approach.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I apologise. I won't intervene again. I will just say the point. What schedule four says is that the environmental impacts can be disregarded. What the noble Lady the minister is telling us is that the minister is telling us is that those environmental impacts include identified and EDP will be disregarded. We agree. And that's disregarded. We agree. And that's what my noble friend is seeking to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
introduce into the bill. My Lords. I won't press this amendment to a vote. We've got a amendment to a vote. We've got a lot of business to do, but I'm just not convinced that the noble Lady are, inter alia, the Natural England as their advisers, has really understood the importance of getting this contractual, the getting this contractual, the enforceability, the consideration, not just what might happen this year or next year, but in 80 years year or next year, but in 80 years and in the and in the intervening period, there's changes of ownership, succession, a bankruptcy, ownership, succession, a bankruptcy, who knows.
Sale. And the section 106 may not be perfect. And I 106 may not be perfect. And I accept entirely her point about the unilateral undertaking report not unilateral undertaking report not final Third Reading. But I do think the we should come back to this at the we should come back to this at Third Reading, because just leaving it to Natural England my Lords I've been involved in this space for three and a half years as a person of significant interest in Norfolk. Environmental Credits Limited Limited, the company established by all the planning authorities in Norfolk.
We've had to dig deep, take the best advice, really try and gain all the scenarios to ensure ultimately, that the promises made by those people who are delivering these conservation measures can and will be delivered for the entirety of the period. This bill is sufficient because it
**** Possible New Speaker ****
doesn't seek and frame that enforceability. Present at the beginning that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Present at the beginning that you weren't moving this your amendment. So that should be sufficient, considering that we shouldn't be rehearsing the debate yet again.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
yet again. I think the noble Lord I'm going to win now by just saying I hope, and the noble Lady and myself have and the noble Lady and myself have a meeting next week, and I do hope that we can develop this further in that meeting to see whether the government may somehow address these concerns at the throat at the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Third Reading. And at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your. Lordship's pleasure, the amendment be withdrawn?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment be withdrawn? The amendment. Is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 135. Lord Roborough not moved. Not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Amendment 136. Baroness Taylor. Moved formally. The question. Is that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is that. Amendment 136. Be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary not say 'content' the contrary not content the contents have it all, be it very sotto voce. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be it very sotto voce. Amendment 137 Lord Roborough. Not moved. Amendment 138 Lord
17:14
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Roborough. My Lords, I raised amendments around the control of non-native around the control of non-native invasive species at committee stage, and while the government was encouragingly resolute in its policy of of of controlling invasive non-native species, I did not receive any reassurance that this might form any part of an environmental delivery plan. I do reluctantly accept that requiring Natural England to remove these from any EDP within five years is a Herculean task and likely impractical. So I have brought back a more targeted and realistic amendment at report stage of this bill, which I believe to be a perfectly reasonable request at EDP.
Simply that where there are environmental features likely to be negatively impacted by non-native invasive species present at the site of a development, Natural England should be responsible for taking all reasonable steps to eradicate it. I am sure my amendments could be better drafted, and I am happy to hear from the government if they have a better suggestion. However, we on these benches believe that not enough is being done to combat the spread of these invaders at the expense of our own flora and fauna.
At committee stage, we discussed the rampaging grey squirrels and muntjac, the scourges of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed. There are so many more that I could mention. These flora and fauna displace our own native species and can also pass on diseases such as squirrelpox, which has had such a devastating impact on our own red squirrels. With the noble Baroness, the Minister be prepared to go further, perhaps in guidance around the formation of Edps, to try and ensure that these these threats are dealt with.
I very much look forward to the introduction of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith's amendment on Swift RICS, a noble native species that deserves our help. I very much look forward to the debate and the noble Baroness the Minister's response I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed clause 55
**** Possible New Speaker ****
line, page 92. Line 34 attendance at the words as printed on the marshalled list. And I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I. Thank that my noble friend for his his guidance in relation to
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Roborough. My Lords, I raised amendments around the control of non-native around the control of non-native invasive species at committee stage, and while the government was encouragingly resolute in its policy of of of controlling invasive non-native species, I did not receive any reassurance that this might form any part of an environmental delivery plan. I do reluctantly accept that requiring Natural England to remove these from any EDP within five years is a Herculean task and likely impractical. So I have brought back a more targeted and realistic amendment at report stage of this bill, which I believe to be a perfectly reasonable request at EDP.
Simply that where there are environmental features likely to be negatively impacted by non-native invasive species present at the site of a development, Natural England should be responsible for taking all reasonable steps to eradicate it. I am sure my amendments could be better drafted, and I am happy to hear from the government if they have a better suggestion. However, we on these benches believe that not enough is being done to combat the spread of these invaders at the expense of our own flora and fauna.
At committee stage, we discussed the rampaging grey squirrels and muntjac, the scourges of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed. There are so many more that I could mention. These flora and fauna displace our own native species and can also pass on diseases such as squirrelpox, which has had such a devastating impact on our own red squirrels. With the noble Baroness, the Minister be prepared to go further, perhaps in guidance around the formation of Edps, to try and ensure that these these threats are dealt with.
I very much look forward to the introduction of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith's amendment on Swift RICS, a noble native species that deserves our help. I very much look forward to the debate and the noble Baroness the Minister's response I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed clause 55
**** Possible New Speaker ****
line, page 92. Line 34 attendance at the words as printed on the marshalled list. And I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And I. Thank that my noble friend for his his guidance in relation to
17:16
Lord Goldsmith (Labour)
-
-
Lord Goldsmith (Labour)
his his guidance in relation to this amendment in recent weeks, speaking in support of amendment 245. And I'm going to be brief, because I don't have to dwell on arguments which have been made in both houses repeatedly, but which are fundamentally very, very simple, as is the mechanism itself that is being pushed via this amendment. But I'm going to be very just briefly recap on the reason why this matters so much. We're in the midst, everyone knows of a rapid, a terrifying decline in the populations of really all cavity nesting birds, but in particular
17:18
17:18
17:18
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Conservative)
way we build today just doesn't work in the same way. We don't have cavities. There's no room for species that depend on those nooks and crannies that older buildings and crannies that older buildings have. But even worse, for these species, we're seeing the massive species, we're seeing the massive rollout of measures that are making life even more difficult, even hopeless, for these cavity nesting hopeless, for these cavity nesting birds. And I don't argue with the measures. I'm a supporter of the Great British Insulation Scheme.
I think it's a great thing. But with think it's a great thing. But with millions of older homes and I believe it's around 15 million so far being retrofitted, being insulated, their cavities just being sealed off. It's no wonder being sealed off. It's no wonder that four of the of the eight cavity nesting bird species that we have here are now on the dreaded have here are now on the dreaded red list of critically endangered species. Luckily, the unlike most species.
Luckily, the unlike most of the problems we end up debating in this place, there is a very, very simple solution. The average two bedroom House brick House according to Jackie. I just asked according to Jackie. I just asked them uses about 20,000 red bricks. This amendment would simply require that one of those bricks has a hole in it. That single brick will cost around £20. It requires zero expertise to install. It requires no maintenance at all, and it works wherever these bricks have been installed.
They attract swifts or or similar birds. Gibraltar mandated very similar to the amendment that we're proposing here about 15, 20 years ago, and the swift population, having been in steep decline, is now stable. There have been suggestions in the previous debates that we've had on this issue that it should be a voluntary measure, but the numbers really are very obvious. Voluntary measures are great and normally I would support them, but they have not worked. And I don't think the argument that the numbers can be disputed.
It needs to be included in building regulations. And the good news is that Swift bricks already qualify for inclusion thanks to the Swift brick British Standard, which includes all the possible and obvious exemptions. Now, finally, as I said, I'd be very clear. I don't believe that any developer or builder could or would or has ever made the case that a measure like this would in any way hamper their work, or deform the pricing of the houses that they have on offer.
The numbers are just so small. The truth is, this doesn't even qualify as a nuisance for builders or developers. And that's what we've been hearing. All of us interested in this issue from the developers themselves. But for the Swifts and their cousins, this is just critical. It's non-negotiable. Without these bricks, they have no future in the United Kingdom. So I hope this measure will simply just be accepted by the government in opposition. I remind them again, they were 100%. They were wildly enthusiastic by my previous amendment and very vocally so.
And in the opening months of this government, that enthusiasm absolutely remained in place. And I felt that we were over the line. Sadly not. But if even this tiny, nature friendly measure is deemed nevertheless to be a step too far, then I really hope that noble Lords will join me in pushing it through
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and over the line via a division when the time comes. I'll be.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'll be. My Lords this is report stage. I will indeed be brief cavity, but nesting bird bricks? Yes, the case
I think it's a great thing. But with think it's a great thing. But with millions of older homes and I believe it's around 15 million so far being retrofitted, being insulated, their cavities just being sealed off. It's no wonder being sealed off. It's no wonder that four of the of the eight cavity nesting bird species that we have here are now on the dreaded have here are now on the dreaded red list of critically endangered species. Luckily, the unlike most species.
Luckily, the unlike most of the problems we end up debating in this place, there is a very, very simple solution. The average two bedroom House brick House according to Jackie. I just asked according to Jackie. I just asked them uses about 20,000 red bricks. This amendment would simply require that one of those bricks has a hole in it. That single brick will cost around £20. It requires zero expertise to install. It requires no maintenance at all, and it works wherever these bricks have been installed.
They attract swifts or or similar birds. Gibraltar mandated very similar to the amendment that we're proposing here about 15, 20 years ago, and the swift population, having been in steep decline, is now stable. There have been suggestions in the previous debates that we've had on this issue that it should be a voluntary measure, but the numbers really are very obvious. Voluntary measures are great and normally I would support them, but they have not worked. And I don't think the argument that the numbers can be disputed.
It needs to be included in building regulations. And the good news is that Swift bricks already qualify for inclusion thanks to the Swift brick British Standard, which includes all the possible and obvious exemptions. Now, finally, as I said, I'd be very clear. I don't believe that any developer or builder could or would or has ever made the case that a measure like this would in any way hamper their work, or deform the pricing of the houses that they have on offer.
The numbers are just so small. The truth is, this doesn't even qualify as a nuisance for builders or developers. And that's what we've been hearing. All of us interested in this issue from the developers themselves. But for the Swifts and their cousins, this is just critical. It's non-negotiable. Without these bricks, they have no future in the United Kingdom. So I hope this measure will simply just be accepted by the government in opposition. I remind them again, they were 100%. They were wildly enthusiastic by my previous amendment and very vocally so.
And in the opening months of this government, that enthusiasm absolutely remained in place. And I felt that we were over the line. Sadly not. But if even this tiny, nature friendly measure is deemed nevertheless to be a step too far, then I really hope that noble Lords will join me in pushing it through
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and over the line via a division when the time comes. I'll be.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'll be. My Lords this is report stage. I will indeed be brief cavity, but nesting bird bricks? Yes, the case
17:20
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
nesting bird bricks? Yes, the case is well made. I would like to just speak briefly to 138. Those who heard me at committee stage will remember. I gave a bit of a treatise on ragwort. I had endless members come up to me and thanked me for the learning that they acquired. I've only had one offer of to come and help me pull it out, and I'm thank Lord Lucas for that in his absence. I don't think it's the non-native aspect that gives me a hard time.
As I've pointed out, roses are non-native, apples are non-native. They both come from Central Asia. It's the invasive nature that is the problem. And I would love to see these EDP and all the other acronyms have an element of a responsibility to deal with an invasive and injurious. That's the word I wanted in law. Injurious and invasive weeds. Because a lot of the current environmental schemes, you have a margin along a field which is entirely yellow with ragwort and is of very little environmental value unless you
**** Possible New Speaker ****
happen to be a calibre moth. Thank you. My Lord. I rise.
As I've pointed out, roses are non-native, apples are non-native. They both come from Central Asia. It's the invasive nature that is the problem. And I would love to see these EDP and all the other acronyms have an element of a responsibility to deal with an invasive and injurious. That's the word I wanted in law. Injurious and invasive weeds. Because a lot of the current environmental schemes, you have a margin along a field which is entirely yellow with ragwort and is of very little environmental value unless you
**** Possible New Speaker ****
happen to be a calibre moth. Thank you. My Lord. I rise.
17:22
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise. With some trepidation. To speak against amendment 245.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
against amendment 245. And in so doing I should. Emphasise that I have. The greatest respect for the noble Lord. Lord Goldsmith, and his.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Lord. Lord Goldsmith, and his. Superb work as. Environment Minister. In. Your Lordships. House. As well as respect.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For the. amendment. It may be. Surprising if your Lordships.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Surprising if your Lordships. Recognition that I'm an emeritus professor in the Grey Institute of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Field Ornithology at Oxford University, which is. Arguably the world's leading ornithological. Research institute.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Research institute. As well as being a life member of the RSPB. So why. Am I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Am I. Against Swift boxes? I'm absolutely in favour of measures to halt the decline in swifts and in halt the decline in swifts and in other species that I'll come to in a moment, but my objection to this amendment is that it simply won't work. The amendment refers to fitting swift bricks on houses or buildings over five metres tall. Now, the basis on which I suggest this won't work is the fact that the Edward Grey Institute is home to the longest running study of swift populations anywhere in the world.
It's been running for 78 years. The first thing to say about this long running Swift study is that the swifts nest in the tower of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, which is not 55m tall but 58m tall. And I'll explain why that's important in a moment. But I don't want you to think this is my opinion alone. I did consult with my colleague, Doctor Christopher, Professor Christopher Perrins, who ran the Swift study for many years, and it was a former director of the Institute.
And what he points out, and I agree with, is that swifts are very specialised aerial feeders and flyers. They're superb flyers and one of the consequences of their specialisation for flight is that in order to get into their nest, they need a very long, exposed flight path, like a jumbo jet landing at an airport. It needs a long entry point. Equally important, when they leave the nest, they need a very large drop space in order to come out the nest drop and start flapping their wings and take off.
And that's why in the nesting in the Tower of University Museum, which I said is at Oxford, which is 58m tall, the swifts prefer to nest at the very top of that tower. Even the boxes that are 20m from the top or 15m from the top, are not used by the Swifts, only the ones at the very top. So this is a very well intentioned idea, and I'm all in favour of measures that would help to reverse the decline in swift populations, but I don't think this is the right one.
So what is the cause of the decline in swift populations in this country? Well, we have to look at the fact that it's not just swifts, but other bird species that are aerial insect feeders, House martins, sand martins and swallows are all in steep decline. They all have very different nesting requirements. The swift is the only one of them that nests in a hole like the swift brick amendment would suggest, or under eaves. So the real cause of the decline of these bird species is the decline in aerial insect populations.
And we all know, and it's an oft repeated fact that in the good old days, when when even I was young, if you drove down a country lane at night, your windscreen would be spattered with insect corpses. Now you drive down a country lane at night and your windscreen is completely clear. So yes, we should tackle the problem of decline in aerial insectivores. Swift's House, Martin, Sandes, Martins and swallows. We should tackle the problem of insect decline. But Swift Boxes is really a bit player in this whole question.
And so reluctantly, although I absolutely support the intention of the amendment, I don't think it will deliver what it's claimed and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
therefore would not support it. As someone who. Is a great.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As someone who. Is a great. Admirer of the. Noble Lord Krebs and I do listen to what he said. In fact, I seem to remember reading a fact, I seem to remember reading a book by probably one of his predecessors in Oxford, birds in a
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise. With some trepidation. To speak against amendment 245.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
against amendment 245. And in so doing I should. Emphasise that I have. The greatest respect for the noble Lord. Lord Goldsmith, and his.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Lord. Lord Goldsmith, and his. Superb work as. Environment Minister. In. Your Lordships. House. As well as respect.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
For the. amendment. It may be. Surprising if your Lordships.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Surprising if your Lordships. Recognition that I'm an emeritus professor in the Grey Institute of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Field Ornithology at Oxford University, which is. Arguably the world's leading ornithological. Research institute.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Research institute. As well as being a life member of the RSPB. So why. Am I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Am I. Against Swift boxes? I'm absolutely in favour of measures to halt the decline in swifts and in halt the decline in swifts and in other species that I'll come to in a moment, but my objection to this amendment is that it simply won't work. The amendment refers to fitting swift bricks on houses or buildings over five metres tall. Now, the basis on which I suggest this won't work is the fact that the Edward Grey Institute is home to the longest running study of swift populations anywhere in the world.
It's been running for 78 years. The first thing to say about this long running Swift study is that the swifts nest in the tower of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, which is not 55m tall but 58m tall. And I'll explain why that's important in a moment. But I don't want you to think this is my opinion alone. I did consult with my colleague, Doctor Christopher, Professor Christopher Perrins, who ran the Swift study for many years, and it was a former director of the Institute.
And what he points out, and I agree with, is that swifts are very specialised aerial feeders and flyers. They're superb flyers and one of the consequences of their specialisation for flight is that in order to get into their nest, they need a very long, exposed flight path, like a jumbo jet landing at an airport. It needs a long entry point. Equally important, when they leave the nest, they need a very large drop space in order to come out the nest drop and start flapping their wings and take off.
And that's why in the nesting in the Tower of University Museum, which I said is at Oxford, which is 58m tall, the swifts prefer to nest at the very top of that tower. Even the boxes that are 20m from the top or 15m from the top, are not used by the Swifts, only the ones at the very top. So this is a very well intentioned idea, and I'm all in favour of measures that would help to reverse the decline in swift populations, but I don't think this is the right one.
So what is the cause of the decline in swift populations in this country? Well, we have to look at the fact that it's not just swifts, but other bird species that are aerial insect feeders, House martins, sand martins and swallows are all in steep decline. They all have very different nesting requirements. The swift is the only one of them that nests in a hole like the swift brick amendment would suggest, or under eaves. So the real cause of the decline of these bird species is the decline in aerial insect populations.
And we all know, and it's an oft repeated fact that in the good old days, when when even I was young, if you drove down a country lane at night, your windscreen would be spattered with insect corpses. Now you drive down a country lane at night and your windscreen is completely clear. So yes, we should tackle the problem of decline in aerial insectivores. Swift's House, Martin, Sandes, Martins and swallows. We should tackle the problem of insect decline. But Swift Boxes is really a bit player in this whole question.
And so reluctantly, although I absolutely support the intention of the amendment, I don't think it will deliver what it's claimed and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
therefore would not support it. As someone who. Is a great.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
As someone who. Is a great. Admirer of the. Noble Lord Krebs and I do listen to what he said. In fact, I seem to remember reading a fact, I seem to remember reading a book by probably one of his predecessors in Oxford, birds in a
17:26
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Tower by David Lack, which was a very interesting and. Useful piece.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Useful piece. Of work. And of course, I understand exactly what he's saying, and it isn't the simple answer. and it isn't the simple answer. Insects, actually. And it's not just those hirundines and swifts that we're talking about, and it is a well-intentioned thing. It may actually Swift bricks, of course, wouldn't be just for swifts. There would be some other nest cavity breeding birds, including House sparrows, which, although may not seem as exciting to people as swifts, would in fact be, they're in decline.
I don't see so many around at all now in Uxbridge, so I know the government, as my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, seem to have done a reverse ferret, I think used to be an expression, a Damascene conversion, but it's a reverse one. But I'm still hoping there may be another one. But I think what the noble Lord Krebs has raised is that we should be looking at all sorts of measures, and there may be an opportunity for the government to look at buildings higher, perhaps not so much residential, but when they actually when we've got things like new schools, new hospitals being built where they could put these swift bricks, or you can even put them under the tiles, I believe is another thing.
So I'm hoping that by the time this this amendment comes to a division, if it does that, there may be some thoughts about how we can get this better. And at Third Reading, I think actually, genuinely, I'm I think the government actually would like to do it. But there are various things that get in the way. I think they've got a perfect excuse now that Lord noble Earl Lord Krebs has given them. So I'll take him aside and sort him out.
But apart from that, I would say that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and many other noble friends, and indeed our noble Lords, have come and expressed their desire for something to be done. And this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seemed like a good way forward. But it's something for us to digest. Sam, I don't think there's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sam, I don't think there's anybody in this House who doesn't want to achieve the objectives of want to achieve the objectives of this amendment, and indeed others. We have to be realistic that our
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Tower by David Lack, which was a very interesting and. Useful piece.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Useful piece. Of work. And of course, I understand exactly what he's saying, and it isn't the simple answer. and it isn't the simple answer. Insects, actually. And it's not just those hirundines and swifts that we're talking about, and it is a well-intentioned thing. It may actually Swift bricks, of course, wouldn't be just for swifts. There would be some other nest cavity breeding birds, including House sparrows, which, although may not seem as exciting to people as swifts, would in fact be, they're in decline.
I don't see so many around at all now in Uxbridge, so I know the government, as my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, seem to have done a reverse ferret, I think used to be an expression, a Damascene conversion, but it's a reverse one. But I'm still hoping there may be another one. But I think what the noble Lord Krebs has raised is that we should be looking at all sorts of measures, and there may be an opportunity for the government to look at buildings higher, perhaps not so much residential, but when they actually when we've got things like new schools, new hospitals being built where they could put these swift bricks, or you can even put them under the tiles, I believe is another thing.
So I'm hoping that by the time this this amendment comes to a division, if it does that, there may be some thoughts about how we can get this better. And at Third Reading, I think actually, genuinely, I'm I think the government actually would like to do it. But there are various things that get in the way. I think they've got a perfect excuse now that Lord noble Earl Lord Krebs has given them. So I'll take him aside and sort him out.
But apart from that, I would say that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and many other noble friends, and indeed our noble Lords, have come and expressed their desire for something to be done. And this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
seemed like a good way forward. But it's something for us to digest. Sam, I don't think there's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sam, I don't think there's anybody in this House who doesn't want to achieve the objectives of want to achieve the objectives of this amendment, and indeed others. We have to be realistic that our
17:28
Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
We have to be realistic that our populations of native birds and other flora and fauna have been dropping for a long time. We collectively are partly responsible for this, of course, and that is why our involvement in land use and urbanisation, naturally enough, clashes with the requirements of of birds such as swifts. So without in any way being have any attempt whatsoever to challenge the noble Lord Krebs with his experience and background. Nevertheless, I feel that even if the swift population isn't necessarily going to be dramatically affected or improved, its chances improved by this measure, other birds might find that they will be a beneficiary, but I cannot see a downside to the proposal.
And on balance, I think it is worth pursuing the amendment because if it doesn't affect swifts in some particular areas, their their behaviour obviously may vary from one place to another. And also other birds will benefit. It's surprising me how many people are interested in this in my own region in the Antrim area, there's a swift, a swift group of significant number of people who are actually trying to help the native species recover, and I think we should encourage that.
And I see no downside to the measure, and I support it, albeit we have to accept the fact that there is no silver bullet that's going to affect any one of these things. There's a combination of things, insects. Being being fewer and far between is obviously, as food source is always the biggest challenge for any native animal. But I do feel that there's enough here in this proposal to make it worthwhile. I support it. I hope the House will do so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I Lords I rise to support my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. It's a difficult thing to do in the wake of the very learned speech by the by the noble
And on balance, I think it is worth pursuing the amendment because if it doesn't affect swifts in some particular areas, their their behaviour obviously may vary from one place to another. And also other birds will benefit. It's surprising me how many people are interested in this in my own region in the Antrim area, there's a swift, a swift group of significant number of people who are actually trying to help the native species recover, and I think we should encourage that.
And I see no downside to the measure, and I support it, albeit we have to accept the fact that there is no silver bullet that's going to affect any one of these things. There's a combination of things, insects. Being being fewer and far between is obviously, as food source is always the biggest challenge for any native animal. But I do feel that there's enough here in this proposal to make it worthwhile. I support it. I hope the House will do so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I Lords I rise to support my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. It's a difficult thing to do in the wake of the very learned speech by the by the noble
17:31
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Moylan (Conservative)
learned speech by the by the noble Lord Lord Krebs. But I think there are sometimes occasions when there are things that don't work in theory, but do work in practice. And what we have seen is in Gibraltar, where a similar measure has been introduced, the population of swifts has stabilised by understanding in the Duchy of Cornwall estate, where this requirement is is made of builders. The the occupancy rate of the cavities created by the Swift bricks is 97%.
Not in every case swifts, but other cavity nesting birds. So as I say, I. While I perfectly accept that Lord Krebs may be right, possibly there's something in the atmosphere in in Oxford. I don't know, but but but at the cost of the measure, as the noble Lord, Lord MP said, at the cost of the measure, it is worth an experiment. And going ahead and making this requirement, which won't, I think, happen despite the goodwill of the builders, unless it is actually passed into law.
Now. I'm always against excessive new and excessive regulation, but my Lords, there are good regulations and bad regulations. Good regulations impose a very small burden on economic actors and have a direct outcome that is intimately, obviously related to the regulatory measure. Bad measures. Of course, bad regulation tends to impose very high burden burdens and produce all sorts of unintended consequences. This measure may not produce the intended consequence to the full degree hoped for, I grant you, but it's very hard to see what poor unintended consequences it could have, and the cost of introducing it would be very, very small.
And I think, my Lord, for those houses where it does work, of the sheer joy of the children, of those households being able to look out of the window and see swifts, not only nesting, but flying to and fro, and maybe even catching those insects in full sight of their bedrooms. I think it's a very pleasing thought, and we should all support this and rally round and make the leap of faith. That may be required. But but I think is fully justified in this case.
Not in every case swifts, but other cavity nesting birds. So as I say, I. While I perfectly accept that Lord Krebs may be right, possibly there's something in the atmosphere in in Oxford. I don't know, but but but at the cost of the measure, as the noble Lord, Lord MP said, at the cost of the measure, it is worth an experiment. And going ahead and making this requirement, which won't, I think, happen despite the goodwill of the builders, unless it is actually passed into law.
Now. I'm always against excessive new and excessive regulation, but my Lords, there are good regulations and bad regulations. Good regulations impose a very small burden on economic actors and have a direct outcome that is intimately, obviously related to the regulatory measure. Bad measures. Of course, bad regulation tends to impose very high burden burdens and produce all sorts of unintended consequences. This measure may not produce the intended consequence to the full degree hoped for, I grant you, but it's very hard to see what poor unintended consequences it could have, and the cost of introducing it would be very, very small.
And I think, my Lord, for those houses where it does work, of the sheer joy of the children, of those households being able to look out of the window and see swifts, not only nesting, but flying to and fro, and maybe even catching those insects in full sight of their bedrooms. I think it's a very pleasing thought, and we should all support this and rally round and make the leap of faith. That may be required. But but I think is fully justified in this case.
17:33
-
I did say not to trust any more amendments from this side, but this is one I will vote for for noble Lord puts it to to the House. It is worth repeating. There's no downside. And secondly, there are eight other. There are eight species that use these swift bricks, four of which are red listed. And so this is a much bigger issue than swifts. Sorry, Lord Goldsmith. It's a much bigger issue than swifts. It is for our native birds, and we should keep that in mind when we vote.
17:34
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
I support amendment 138, tabled by my Noble friend Lord Roborough. The non-native invasive species are one of the top five pressures on biodiversity and it is extraordinary. There are variety of strategies underway by the government, but there are still, frankly, a lack of really getting stuff done. But it's absolutely vital that as and when these EDPs get created, if they get created, that this must be tackled. And for the noble Lord Lord Cromwell, I would recommend he speak to the Senior Deputy Speaker because the noble Lord Lord Gardiner Kimball, when he was a different minister, was obsessed by biosecurity and tackling these invasive species, and he used to pull up, I think it was not what the Japanese one, but the other, the balsa stuff.
So he's apparently he's apparently he's a dab hand at that. He's he's a dab hand at that. Turning to one of the amendments that I co-signed by that of my noble friend. Lord Goldsmith. Sorry, I think it is something that I will certainly be pushing for a vote on. Test the opinion of the House on Monday night. And the reason being, I have heard what the noble Lord Lord Krebs has said, but there is a risk of perfect should not be the enemy of good.
There's no doubt that the lack of habitat, there's no doubt that the lack of insects is a key factor in what is happening with habitats. But so is the lack of a place where they can actually just land and thrive. And as has been pointed out, there are other species. Indeed, I know when I was at Defra there was always a row with MHCLG about this who complained regularly or obfuscated frankly so often about how an extra 20 to £30 would just absolutely wipe out the House building industry.
I mean, honestly, it's complete nonsense now that Steve Reid, who supported Swift RICS when he was environment secretary, now he's the housing secretary. I hope that he can persuade the Treasury that it's OK that we have swift bricks as standard. And indeed, I'm sure there are many other people would like. This is simple. It's straightforward. Let's save our swifts. All right. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I thank the noble Lord for tabling amendment one three, eight, and we look forward to here. I'm going to be extremely brief on this, going to be extremely brief on this, and I'll explain why in just a second. So, and we look forward to hearing the response from the hearing the response from the minister. Of course, invasive non-native species and the pressures that they put on our pressures that they put on our beautiful natural countryside as something that we all need to be extremely mindful of now moving swiftly on.
No joke intended on two, swiftly on. No joke intended on two, four, five, which we do support by the noble Lord Goldsmith. But of the noble Lord Goldsmith. But of course, amendments on swift bricks bit like buses. You wait ages and bit like buses. You wait ages and ages and to come along we have one in the next group and I'm almost excited now in anticipation of Lord excited now in anticipation of Lord Krebs critique of amendment 140 in the next group, in case you haven't
So he's apparently he's apparently he's a dab hand at that. He's he's a dab hand at that. Turning to one of the amendments that I co-signed by that of my noble friend. Lord Goldsmith. Sorry, I think it is something that I will certainly be pushing for a vote on. Test the opinion of the House on Monday night. And the reason being, I have heard what the noble Lord Lord Krebs has said, but there is a risk of perfect should not be the enemy of good.
There's no doubt that the lack of habitat, there's no doubt that the lack of insects is a key factor in what is happening with habitats. But so is the lack of a place where they can actually just land and thrive. And as has been pointed out, there are other species. Indeed, I know when I was at Defra there was always a row with MHCLG about this who complained regularly or obfuscated frankly so often about how an extra 20 to £30 would just absolutely wipe out the House building industry.
I mean, honestly, it's complete nonsense now that Steve Reid, who supported Swift RICS when he was environment secretary, now he's the housing secretary. I hope that he can persuade the Treasury that it's OK that we have swift bricks as standard. And indeed, I'm sure there are many other people would like. This is simple. It's straightforward. Let's save our swifts. All right. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well, I thank the noble Lord for tabling amendment one three, eight, and we look forward to here. I'm going to be extremely brief on this, going to be extremely brief on this, and I'll explain why in just a second. So, and we look forward to hearing the response from the hearing the response from the minister. Of course, invasive non-native species and the pressures that they put on our pressures that they put on our beautiful natural countryside as something that we all need to be extremely mindful of now moving swiftly on.
No joke intended on two, swiftly on. No joke intended on two, four, five, which we do support by the noble Lord Goldsmith. But of the noble Lord Goldsmith. But of course, amendments on swift bricks bit like buses. You wait ages and bit like buses. You wait ages and ages and to come along we have one in the next group and I'm almost excited now in anticipation of Lord excited now in anticipation of Lord Krebs critique of amendment 140 in the next group, in case you haven't
17:37
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
the next group, in case you haven't had a look yet, Lord Krebs. So we will develop our arguments on Swift bricks, plus other measures in the next set of amendments. But just to say, as a kind of slight precursor to that, that having a level playing field with developers and ensuring that everyone is asked to put Swift bricks in is something that we believe is the right way of doing things. They cost £30 per brick, as I understand it.
So as the noble Earl Baroness Coffey has already said, this is not going to break the bank of any of the developers, especially with their net profit. And so we are we are supportive of this. If it does move to a vote, but we're also very keen to get to the next set of amendments. And my apologies to the House that we didn't manage to get these two sets of amendments in the same group, which would have been much more sensible.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I Lords a very interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord Lord Roborough for amendment 138, which Roborough for amendment 138, which seeks to protect environmental features of environmental delivery plans that are identified as being at risk from invasive, non-native species. And as he said, there's
So as the noble Earl Baroness Coffey has already said, this is not going to break the bank of any of the developers, especially with their net profit. And so we are we are supportive of this. If it does move to a vote, but we're also very keen to get to the next set of amendments. And my apologies to the House that we didn't manage to get these two sets of amendments in the same group, which would have been much more sensible.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I Lords a very interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord Lord Roborough for amendment 138, which Roborough for amendment 138, which seeks to protect environmental features of environmental delivery plans that are identified as being at risk from invasive, non-native species. And as he said, there's
17:39
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)
some very interesting discussions in meetings outside of the chamber about the various non-native species that plague our lives. As we outlined at committee, the government recognises the negative impacts of invasive, non-native species on our native species and ecosystems, and we are committed to taking action. We are already delivering the GB Invasive non-Native Species Strategy and have established the GB non-Native Species Inspectorate, as well as recently consulting on the five pathway action plans that would target action at key pathways through which invasive, non-native species can be introduced and spread.
While I appreciate the noble Lords intentions in tabling this amendment, we don't believe it's necessary or feasible. The NRF already allows invasive non-native species control as a conservation measure where it would be relevant to the environmental feature concerned, and would support the delivery of overall improvement necessary under the EDP. However, control may not always be the best option. Other conservation measures may represent better value for money, have greater environmental impact, be more appropriate in line with the need to secure the overall improvement by the EDP end date.
This amendment would introduce a free standing requirement to take action to eradicate invasive, non-native species from a development site, even where this is not linked to the impact from development covered by the EDP. This would require developers to pay to address an issue unrelated to their development. Mandating action in this way could delay an EDP preparation and delivery. It could increase costs and inadvertently limit the ability to secure the best environmental outcomes. On that basis, it's more more appropriate that control remain as a potential conservation measure under EDPs to be used at Natural England discretion, where it represents the best option.
With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment and turning now to amendment 245. The government is committed to driving nature's recovery while delivering the homes and infrastructure we desperately need. We do recognise, and I've had many discussions with the noble Earl Lord Goldsmith on this subject. The dramatic decline of the much loved Swift and indeed of other birds nesting birds, and we are committed to supporting the rollout of swift bricks alongside new development. The only distinction between our position and the amendment that lies before us is in the mechanism by which we seek to increase the use of this wildlife friendly feature.
And incidentally, I did have a meeting this week with the MP who has a huge brick manufacturing plant in his constituency. Adam Jogee. And I was talking to him about whether he would speak to the people in that company to persuade them to produce swift bricks as well. So I'm still on the case. I thank the noble Lord Lord Goldsmith for his contribution on this topic, and for setting out why he considers Swift bricks are an exceptional measure. Mandating swift bricks through building regulations we know is an issue of long standing interest.
I've debated it many times in this House myself. As we've laid out before, building regulations in the UK are designed to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings. They were not designed to apply to the protection of wildlife and expanding their scope to include interventions such as swift bricks would mark a significant shift in regulatory intent. This does risk a number of unintended consequences, including diluting the purpose of the current regime, establishing overlapping policies, and adding administrative pressure to a system which is already undergoing significant reform.
Furthermore, the process of updating building regulations is highly technical and complex, introducing requirements that fall outside its current remit could slow down essential updates, divert resources, place additional burdens on registered building control approvers, complicate existing inspection, sanction and enforcement procedures, and fundamentally undermine the credibility of the system. We strongly believe that planning policy is the best way forward. The government remain committed to consulting on a new requirement for swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings. As part of our consultation on national planning policy, which we intend to launch this year.
I'm very grateful to the very fascinating intervention from the noble Lord Krebs, because I think he helped emphasise that there are wider issues to be considered here, and I hope that by consulting on this national planning policy, we'll be able to get the best outcome for nature as part of the planning policy that we set out in June, we published updated planning practice guidance, setting out expectations for the use of these features and signposting to further resources, including the relevant British industry standard.
These measures are further to the new policy we introduced last December, explicitly stating that development proposals should enhance the natural environment by incorporating features which support priority or threatened species such as swifts. We expect these policies to be adhered to and enforced as the rest of planning policy, which we have addressed previously, is a material consideration in planning decisions. Local planning authorities possess a range of powers to ensure that the terms of planning permissions are complied with, and they are able to take enforcement action where the requirements of a planning permission is being breached.
To bolster planning departments. Last autumn, we announced a £46 million package, which included funding for the recruitment and training of 300 planners. And through this bill, we are enabling authorities to increase planning fees to strengthen service delivery. So we've put some resources in to help with the enforcement as well as we have set out previously. Progress is already underway and I hope the noble Lord Goldsmith has noted that we haven't stood still since our earlier discussions on this topic. Many home builders have signed up to the homes for nature scheme, led by the Future Homes Hub.
As part of this commitment, developers must install a bird nesting brick or box with every new home. Participants in the scheme include some of our biggest volume home builders like Barratt, Redrow, Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon Homes and make up a significant proportion of the overall market. Extensive guidance is available to assist developers in selecting and installing these features, including the British industry Standard, the Future Homes for nature guidance and the RSPB guide to nest Boxes. Additionally, the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code illustrate how well-designed places can support rich, varied biodiversity.
Therefore, the use of building regulations to mandate swift bricks is unnecessary. But we also feel that the legislative route is not the best way to achieve the objective of providing habitats for species alongside new homes. As we have laid out before, building regulations are designed to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings, and we do not want to risk the unintended consequences that I've already outlined. While I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, we believe that using planning policy will ensure swift bricks are incorporated into development proposals where they're going to be an effective measure to help reverse the population decline.
Taking an approach in planning policy avoids placing additional strain on a system already under significant pressure, and it can be implemented. I'm hesitating to use the pun, but more swiftly than other measures, and it provides a less prescriptive, more adaptable framework better suited to meet the specific needs of what we all understand in this chamber are very precious native birds, and we hope, therefore, that Lord Goldsmith will agree to withdraw his amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just before. She says. I have a very brief question. I just wanted to ask, am question. I just wanted to ask, am I not right in thinking that the building regulations has been used building regulations has been used as a vehicle for in relation to the Climate Change Act and also in relation to the Environment Act, and therefore it goes beyond the and therefore it goes beyond the remit of simply safeguarding the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
well-being and health of individual occupants. Those are complex technical regulations around the construction regulations around the construction of buildings which don't relate to the protection of species. As the the protection of species. As the noble Lord is aware, there are many, many species lobbying groups who would want, maybe want to use would want, maybe want to use building regulations for that purpose. The other thing is that building regulations cover a huge building regulations cover a huge variety of different buildings, including probably the 58 foot tower that the noble Lord Krebs was tower that the noble Lord Krebs was referring to.
If you imagine the number of species compared with the number of different sizes and number of different sizes and shapes of buildings, we'd end up with a very complex picture with building regulations if we were to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
building regulations if we were to go down this route. My Lords, I'm very grateful for
While I appreciate the noble Lords intentions in tabling this amendment, we don't believe it's necessary or feasible. The NRF already allows invasive non-native species control as a conservation measure where it would be relevant to the environmental feature concerned, and would support the delivery of overall improvement necessary under the EDP. However, control may not always be the best option. Other conservation measures may represent better value for money, have greater environmental impact, be more appropriate in line with the need to secure the overall improvement by the EDP end date.
This amendment would introduce a free standing requirement to take action to eradicate invasive, non-native species from a development site, even where this is not linked to the impact from development covered by the EDP. This would require developers to pay to address an issue unrelated to their development. Mandating action in this way could delay an EDP preparation and delivery. It could increase costs and inadvertently limit the ability to secure the best environmental outcomes. On that basis, it's more more appropriate that control remain as a potential conservation measure under EDPs to be used at Natural England discretion, where it represents the best option.
With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment and turning now to amendment 245. The government is committed to driving nature's recovery while delivering the homes and infrastructure we desperately need. We do recognise, and I've had many discussions with the noble Earl Lord Goldsmith on this subject. The dramatic decline of the much loved Swift and indeed of other birds nesting birds, and we are committed to supporting the rollout of swift bricks alongside new development. The only distinction between our position and the amendment that lies before us is in the mechanism by which we seek to increase the use of this wildlife friendly feature.
And incidentally, I did have a meeting this week with the MP who has a huge brick manufacturing plant in his constituency. Adam Jogee. And I was talking to him about whether he would speak to the people in that company to persuade them to produce swift bricks as well. So I'm still on the case. I thank the noble Lord Lord Goldsmith for his contribution on this topic, and for setting out why he considers Swift bricks are an exceptional measure. Mandating swift bricks through building regulations we know is an issue of long standing interest.
I've debated it many times in this House myself. As we've laid out before, building regulations in the UK are designed to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings. They were not designed to apply to the protection of wildlife and expanding their scope to include interventions such as swift bricks would mark a significant shift in regulatory intent. This does risk a number of unintended consequences, including diluting the purpose of the current regime, establishing overlapping policies, and adding administrative pressure to a system which is already undergoing significant reform.
Furthermore, the process of updating building regulations is highly technical and complex, introducing requirements that fall outside its current remit could slow down essential updates, divert resources, place additional burdens on registered building control approvers, complicate existing inspection, sanction and enforcement procedures, and fundamentally undermine the credibility of the system. We strongly believe that planning policy is the best way forward. The government remain committed to consulting on a new requirement for swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings. As part of our consultation on national planning policy, which we intend to launch this year.
I'm very grateful to the very fascinating intervention from the noble Lord Krebs, because I think he helped emphasise that there are wider issues to be considered here, and I hope that by consulting on this national planning policy, we'll be able to get the best outcome for nature as part of the planning policy that we set out in June, we published updated planning practice guidance, setting out expectations for the use of these features and signposting to further resources, including the relevant British industry standard.
These measures are further to the new policy we introduced last December, explicitly stating that development proposals should enhance the natural environment by incorporating features which support priority or threatened species such as swifts. We expect these policies to be adhered to and enforced as the rest of planning policy, which we have addressed previously, is a material consideration in planning decisions. Local planning authorities possess a range of powers to ensure that the terms of planning permissions are complied with, and they are able to take enforcement action where the requirements of a planning permission is being breached.
To bolster planning departments. Last autumn, we announced a £46 million package, which included funding for the recruitment and training of 300 planners. And through this bill, we are enabling authorities to increase planning fees to strengthen service delivery. So we've put some resources in to help with the enforcement as well as we have set out previously. Progress is already underway and I hope the noble Lord Goldsmith has noted that we haven't stood still since our earlier discussions on this topic. Many home builders have signed up to the homes for nature scheme, led by the Future Homes Hub.
As part of this commitment, developers must install a bird nesting brick or box with every new home. Participants in the scheme include some of our biggest volume home builders like Barratt, Redrow, Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon Homes and make up a significant proportion of the overall market. Extensive guidance is available to assist developers in selecting and installing these features, including the British industry Standard, the Future Homes for nature guidance and the RSPB guide to nest Boxes. Additionally, the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code illustrate how well-designed places can support rich, varied biodiversity.
Therefore, the use of building regulations to mandate swift bricks is unnecessary. But we also feel that the legislative route is not the best way to achieve the objective of providing habitats for species alongside new homes. As we have laid out before, building regulations are designed to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings, and we do not want to risk the unintended consequences that I've already outlined. While I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, we believe that using planning policy will ensure swift bricks are incorporated into development proposals where they're going to be an effective measure to help reverse the population decline.
Taking an approach in planning policy avoids placing additional strain on a system already under significant pressure, and it can be implemented. I'm hesitating to use the pun, but more swiftly than other measures, and it provides a less prescriptive, more adaptable framework better suited to meet the specific needs of what we all understand in this chamber are very precious native birds, and we hope, therefore, that Lord Goldsmith will agree to withdraw his amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Just before. She says. I have a very brief question. I just wanted to ask, am question. I just wanted to ask, am I not right in thinking that the building regulations has been used building regulations has been used as a vehicle for in relation to the Climate Change Act and also in relation to the Environment Act, and therefore it goes beyond the and therefore it goes beyond the remit of simply safeguarding the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
well-being and health of individual occupants. Those are complex technical regulations around the construction regulations around the construction of buildings which don't relate to the protection of species. As the the protection of species. As the noble Lord is aware, there are many, many species lobbying groups who would want, maybe want to use would want, maybe want to use building regulations for that purpose. The other thing is that building regulations cover a huge building regulations cover a huge variety of different buildings, including probably the 58 foot tower that the noble Lord Krebs was tower that the noble Lord Krebs was referring to.
If you imagine the number of species compared with the number of different sizes and number of different sizes and shapes of buildings, we'd end up with a very complex picture with building regulations if we were to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
building regulations if we were to go down this route. My Lords, I'm very grateful for
17:48
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm very grateful for the response to noble Baroness, the minister to this this small group of amendments starting just briefly with the invasive non-native species. I think it was very encouraging to hear this government's commitment to controlling them and also the role that the EDP will, will, will, will take in managing these non-native, invasive, invasive species. I'm also very grateful to my noble friend, Lord Lord Goldsmith for the introduction of his amendment, and I would also like to pay tribute to all of the work he's done for the environment and nature restoration, not least as my previous neighbour in Devon with the remarkable planting schemes he did there in with his amendments.
I think given we're returning to this subject in the next group, we can then address
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. John Lordships pleasure the
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm very grateful for the response to noble Baroness, the minister to this this small group of amendments starting just briefly with the invasive non-native species. I think it was very encouraging to hear this government's commitment to controlling them and also the role that the EDP will, will, will, will take in managing these non-native, invasive, invasive species. I'm also very grateful to my noble friend, Lord Lord Goldsmith for the introduction of his amendment, and I would also like to pay tribute to all of the work he's done for the environment and nature restoration, not least as my previous neighbour in Devon with the remarkable planting schemes he did there in with his amendments.
I think given we're returning to this subject in the next group, we can then address
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. John Lordships pleasure the
17:49
Deputy Lord Speaker
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
John Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 139 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 140. The Baroness Grender.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, here we are again and the urgency of the nature crisis the urgency of the nature crisis demands that we stop relying on, in our view, voluntary commitments and our view, voluntary commitments and shift to mandatory or regulation. shift to mandatory or regulation. And I'm sorry that we're we're going back to a subject that we've already rehearsed quite a bit, but still, it's a really important one. still, it's a really important one. And my amendment also expands which kind of species we make and try and kind of species we make and try and include within building regulations.
I'd like to thank the noble Lady, I'd like to thank the noble Lady, the minister, for a meeting we had only yesterday where we tried to work through some of these issues, work through some of these issues, and I have definitely heard both and I have definitely heard both yesterday and today, the concern she has about embedding within regulations some of this. But I would still argue that making sure there is a level playing field and
Deputy Lord Speaker
**** Possible New Speaker ****
John Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 139 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 140. The Baroness Grender.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, here we are again and the urgency of the nature crisis the urgency of the nature crisis demands that we stop relying on, in our view, voluntary commitments and our view, voluntary commitments and shift to mandatory or regulation. shift to mandatory or regulation. And I'm sorry that we're we're going back to a subject that we've already rehearsed quite a bit, but still, it's a really important one. still, it's a really important one. And my amendment also expands which kind of species we make and try and kind of species we make and try and include within building regulations.
I'd like to thank the noble Lady, I'd like to thank the noble Lady, the minister, for a meeting we had only yesterday where we tried to work through some of these issues, work through some of these issues, and I have definitely heard both and I have definitely heard both yesterday and today, the concern she has about embedding within regulations some of this. But I would still argue that making sure there is a level playing field and
17:50
Amendment:140
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
Amendment:140
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
there is a level playing field and that developers have clarity of ask is still worth trying for. And so I would like to, you know, kind of explore it again. The purpose of amendment 140 and I thank the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for signing it as well, requires the Secretary of State to introduce building regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity within six months of this act. Passing these regulations should include specific measures such as swift bricks, back boxes and hedgehog highways.
The question why building regulations are appropriate mechanisms for features like this? And the answer is clarity, consistency and enforceability. Relying on the fluidity of planning, policy or non-statutory commitments leads to systemic failure in delivery. Surveys show that ecological features promised in planning approval, such as bat and bird boxes and hedgehog highways, are often surprise, surprise, missing post-construction mandating their inclusion via building regulations ensures that every new home contributes to halting the decline in species abundance.
Aligning with our legal duties under the Environment Act 21, building regulations already incorporate mechanisms for exemptions, ensuring where installation is impractical, and I wonder if that is something that we could explore, such as near airports where flexibility is retained. We must ensure these proven low cost features are delivered universally, moving past discretion and local planning controls. And it is notable that there are, for instance, some local authorities who do have this and do mandate it already, including some Labour ones, and I'm very happy to supply the list to the noble Lady, the minister, the Labour ones that already do it.
But it would be great to make this a level playing field across all local authorities, and that's what we're trying to achieve here. I also welcome with interest the amendment by the noble Lady Baroness Coffey and. Any measure that encourages the creation of water bodies obviously needs to be subject to rigorous standards to ensure environmental gain. And I look forward to hearing her words and the response to that. Finally, on amendment 246, firstly, I thank the noble Baroness Freeman for putting her name to my amendment and I have in turn put my name to.
This amendment aims to compel the Secretary of State to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to incorporate measures that reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, alongside issuing relevant guidance, we support this necessary move to strengthen design quality. This amendment addresses an avoidable cause of fatalities and would make a very useful contribution to combating the ongoing decline in both species, which we've already heard in the last group is so significant at the moment. So it is very much aligned with the approach that we would like to take on these benches of pursuing meaningful preventative ecological outcomes, rather than allowing damage and scrambling for compensation afterwards, which we fear is a bit of a feature of some of the measures within this bill.
My Lords, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 55. Insert the new clause as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
55. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. I Lords I table 203A which is about permitted development for about permitted development for ponds, and I did listen at committee stage with concerns that the original proposal I put in of the original proposal I put in of the size of a hectare could start to introduce other sorts of uses for something with such a permitted for something with such a permitted development. Right. And that's why I've returned with surface area of I've returned with surface area of less than 0.25 hectares.
The your Lordships will know this is the Lordships will know this is the only way that peers can can adjust regulations is by putting primary legislation in place. But I'd like to encourage the government to consider just go through the consider just go through the statute book, think about the plan of how we're going to achieve the Environment Act. Think about how Environment Act. Think about how we're actually going to tackle the National Biodiversity Strategy Plan,
The question why building regulations are appropriate mechanisms for features like this? And the answer is clarity, consistency and enforceability. Relying on the fluidity of planning, policy or non-statutory commitments leads to systemic failure in delivery. Surveys show that ecological features promised in planning approval, such as bat and bird boxes and hedgehog highways, are often surprise, surprise, missing post-construction mandating their inclusion via building regulations ensures that every new home contributes to halting the decline in species abundance.
Aligning with our legal duties under the Environment Act 21, building regulations already incorporate mechanisms for exemptions, ensuring where installation is impractical, and I wonder if that is something that we could explore, such as near airports where flexibility is retained. We must ensure these proven low cost features are delivered universally, moving past discretion and local planning controls. And it is notable that there are, for instance, some local authorities who do have this and do mandate it already, including some Labour ones, and I'm very happy to supply the list to the noble Lady, the minister, the Labour ones that already do it.
But it would be great to make this a level playing field across all local authorities, and that's what we're trying to achieve here. I also welcome with interest the amendment by the noble Lady Baroness Coffey and. Any measure that encourages the creation of water bodies obviously needs to be subject to rigorous standards to ensure environmental gain. And I look forward to hearing her words and the response to that. Finally, on amendment 246, firstly, I thank the noble Baroness Freeman for putting her name to my amendment and I have in turn put my name to.
This amendment aims to compel the Secretary of State to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to incorporate measures that reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, alongside issuing relevant guidance, we support this necessary move to strengthen design quality. This amendment addresses an avoidable cause of fatalities and would make a very useful contribution to combating the ongoing decline in both species, which we've already heard in the last group is so significant at the moment. So it is very much aligned with the approach that we would like to take on these benches of pursuing meaningful preventative ecological outcomes, rather than allowing damage and scrambling for compensation afterwards, which we fear is a bit of a feature of some of the measures within this bill.
My Lords, I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 55. Insert the new clause as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
55. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. I Lords I table 203A which is about permitted development for about permitted development for ponds, and I did listen at committee stage with concerns that the original proposal I put in of the original proposal I put in of the size of a hectare could start to introduce other sorts of uses for something with such a permitted for something with such a permitted development. Right. And that's why I've returned with surface area of I've returned with surface area of less than 0.25 hectares.
The your Lordships will know this is the Lordships will know this is the only way that peers can can adjust regulations is by putting primary legislation in place. But I'd like to encourage the government to consider just go through the consider just go through the statute book, think about the plan of how we're going to achieve the Environment Act. Think about how Environment Act. Think about how we're actually going to tackle the National Biodiversity Strategy Plan,
17:55
-
National Biodiversity Strategy Plan, and make it as easy as possible for there to be thousands of new ponds around the country that will help newts, amphibians, mammals, insects, newts, amphibians, mammals, insects, plants. It's not always just about the the fauna. The flora matter too. And as a consequence I really am keen to hear positive noises from the government before considering whether to test the opinion House next week. But just turning briefly to amendment 140. I think there's a lot to be commended in what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has said.
This is about trying to make it as easy as possible for people, organisations, councils, whoever to do the right thing because it's critical for the future of our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planet. I think that. We should make our homes and our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We should make our homes and our houses and our gardens, as well as supportive to the lives of other species as is feasible, and especially where the solutions are especially where the solutions are so low cost. And so I was very happy to add my name to amendment happy to add my name to amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness Grender, I refrain from wading into the swift box debate previously, because I consider this one to be Swift box plus, and I one to be Swift box plus, and I support this one.
I do agree with my noble friend Lord Krebs about the behaviour of Swifts, and I've
This is about trying to make it as easy as possible for people, organisations, councils, whoever to do the right thing because it's critical for the future of our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
planet. I think that. We should make our homes and our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We should make our homes and our houses and our gardens, as well as supportive to the lives of other species as is feasible, and especially where the solutions are especially where the solutions are so low cost. And so I was very happy to add my name to amendment happy to add my name to amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness Grender, I refrain from wading into the swift box debate previously, because I consider this one to be Swift box plus, and I one to be Swift box plus, and I support this one.
I do agree with my noble friend Lord Krebs about the behaviour of Swifts, and I've
17:56
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
the behaviour of Swifts, and I've had the joy of filming them in the tower in Oxford. But I also know that these boxes are really heavily used by other species, and therefore I support the use of swift bricks and swift and nest boxes and anything that costs virtually nothing. I recognise that the government is not keen to change building regulations. I would note that adding spaces is free and doesn't have to be under the name of nature. Perhaps we could change building regulation to add some spaces without specifically saying that it's for nature.
For instance, for hedgehog highways leaving gaps under fences. We don't have to commercialise this. We can just say that leaving a gap is a good thing to do. But moving on to my own. Amendment 246 on bird safe design, which is supported by the noble Baronesses Grender Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and also by the Animal Sentience Committee, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. I've spoken about this at committee stage, but just to remind noble Lords, an estimated 30 million birds a year are being killed by glass windows in the UK, and free and cheap solutions exist, which can reduce these collisions by over 90%.
Bird safe design is already legislated for in many other jurisdictions, all based on good research done at major centres in the US and Europe. And I've spoken about bird safe glass and how it's patterned or UV coating can make it visible to birds, but I wanted to make the point additionally that these changes, these coatings or blinds or louvres that we see often in glass office blocks also help with thermal protection. So bird safety can easily be combined with net zero building requirements at no extra cost.
And that's just a little thought to make. The regulations that deal with one also deal with the other. And I also want to emphasise that most bird safe design is also free and absolutely way of House or office building. So for example, you know, the little ventilation shafts or drainage things that you grills that you get at the bottom of big glass offices. Well, if a bird hits the office glass and falls into those, they can fall through the grill if the grill is too large, and then they come round into a space that they can't get out of, and they can starve to death, while simply mandating that the grill sizes smaller than two centimetres can stop the birds from getting stuck in them in the first place.
So these are just the tiny things that can help. And these are already specified in guidance from Canada, the US, Singapore, Switzerland. We have no such guide here at committee stage and at a helpful meeting with the noble Earl Baroness Hayman of Ullock, the government said it was sympathetic to the principles but didn't want to change building standards to encompass nature as well as humans. So I've changed my amendment here to specify an addition to the NPPF instead, as part of its updating, the NPPF already includes things like swift bricks, but doesn't address bird safety at all.
And this is a big surprise to people from other countries where bird safe building design is much higher profile. We have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 not to recklessly kill birds, given that a simple and cheap change to building design could so dramatically reduce the number of birds being killed by our buildings, I would say that adding it to the NPPF and issuing a guidance booklet, as is done in countries is really necessary. And I'm really very much hope something positive from the noble Lady the Minister tonight.
If the government agrees with the principles but has a different way that they want to implement them, then I'm all ears. But this is the planning and infrastructure bill. And I do think that whatever their plans are, should be on the face of this bill. And I reserve the right to ask the opinion of the House next week if I am not satisfied with her answer.
For instance, for hedgehog highways leaving gaps under fences. We don't have to commercialise this. We can just say that leaving a gap is a good thing to do. But moving on to my own. Amendment 246 on bird safe design, which is supported by the noble Baronesses Grender Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and also by the Animal Sentience Committee, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. I've spoken about this at committee stage, but just to remind noble Lords, an estimated 30 million birds a year are being killed by glass windows in the UK, and free and cheap solutions exist, which can reduce these collisions by over 90%.
Bird safe design is already legislated for in many other jurisdictions, all based on good research done at major centres in the US and Europe. And I've spoken about bird safe glass and how it's patterned or UV coating can make it visible to birds, but I wanted to make the point additionally that these changes, these coatings or blinds or louvres that we see often in glass office blocks also help with thermal protection. So bird safety can easily be combined with net zero building requirements at no extra cost.
And that's just a little thought to make. The regulations that deal with one also deal with the other. And I also want to emphasise that most bird safe design is also free and absolutely way of House or office building. So for example, you know, the little ventilation shafts or drainage things that you grills that you get at the bottom of big glass offices. Well, if a bird hits the office glass and falls into those, they can fall through the grill if the grill is too large, and then they come round into a space that they can't get out of, and they can starve to death, while simply mandating that the grill sizes smaller than two centimetres can stop the birds from getting stuck in them in the first place.
So these are just the tiny things that can help. And these are already specified in guidance from Canada, the US, Singapore, Switzerland. We have no such guide here at committee stage and at a helpful meeting with the noble Earl Baroness Hayman of Ullock, the government said it was sympathetic to the principles but didn't want to change building standards to encompass nature as well as humans. So I've changed my amendment here to specify an addition to the NPPF instead, as part of its updating, the NPPF already includes things like swift bricks, but doesn't address bird safety at all.
And this is a big surprise to people from other countries where bird safe building design is much higher profile. We have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 not to recklessly kill birds, given that a simple and cheap change to building design could so dramatically reduce the number of birds being killed by our buildings, I would say that adding it to the NPPF and issuing a guidance booklet, as is done in countries is really necessary. And I'm really very much hope something positive from the noble Lady the Minister tonight.
If the government agrees with the principles but has a different way that they want to implement them, then I'm all ears. But this is the planning and infrastructure bill. And I do think that whatever their plans are, should be on the face of this bill. And I reserve the right to ask the opinion of the House next week if I am not satisfied with her answer.
18:00
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
I rise to fully support both amendments 140 and 246. I would agree entirely with the noble lady Baron Grender about having a level playing field. I remember organising a round table in number ten a few years ago with developers and builders, and they all said we'd love to do various environmental things, but we're not going to do it if somebody else doesn't. Now, in that case, it was, of course, because it was a bit more expensive. It was very often to do with boilers and so on and so forth.
These measures we're talking about are very, very low cost. And although I can understand that governments are loath to implement this until actually everybody has to do it, then everybody will be happy. And I mean, there are I'm sure there are things that could be if extra things that could be put on or whatever, and that's going to be a danger. But I think we've got to look at this very seriously. And with regard to two, four, six, I thoroughly, thoroughly support this because it is a huge problem.
A bird fatalities with buildings. And I just the noble Baroness Freeman has said it all, but I just wanted to say that I think in a country where we really do take an interest in biodiversity, in birds and everything else, we shouldn't be lagging behind other countries. I think we ought to be. I can't say taking the lead because we're following on, but we should be getting up there. And as a final thought to the government, because I always want to help governments.
It's part of my job, I think. Yeah. So if we can't agree on, particularly with 140, what my thought would be a nice idea is if developers and builders had to before they, with the new bill, this is actually had to offer a make sure they were offered to the potential customers. The choice of having these things with a price on. And I think if they said have a bat box for £20 and a swift box for, I think a lot of people would actually go for it.
But I think the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
best thing to do is on these amendments. My Lords it's a. Pleasure to follow the. Noble Lord, Lord Randall, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lord, Lord Randall, and indeed everyone who's spoken in this group. I'll be very brief, starting with amendment 246, to starting with amendment 246, to which, as the noble lady Baroness Freeman said, I've attached my name, and I heard some expressions of and I heard some expressions of shock when the noble lady said, 30 million bird strikes a year. I heard expressions of shock from
These measures we're talking about are very, very low cost. And although I can understand that governments are loath to implement this until actually everybody has to do it, then everybody will be happy. And I mean, there are I'm sure there are things that could be if extra things that could be put on or whatever, and that's going to be a danger. But I think we've got to look at this very seriously. And with regard to two, four, six, I thoroughly, thoroughly support this because it is a huge problem.
A bird fatalities with buildings. And I just the noble Baroness Freeman has said it all, but I just wanted to say that I think in a country where we really do take an interest in biodiversity, in birds and everything else, we shouldn't be lagging behind other countries. I think we ought to be. I can't say taking the lead because we're following on, but we should be getting up there. And as a final thought to the government, because I always want to help governments.
It's part of my job, I think. Yeah. So if we can't agree on, particularly with 140, what my thought would be a nice idea is if developers and builders had to before they, with the new bill, this is actually had to offer a make sure they were offered to the potential customers. The choice of having these things with a price on. And I think if they said have a bat box for £20 and a swift box for, I think a lot of people would actually go for it.
But I think the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
best thing to do is on these amendments. My Lords it's a. Pleasure to follow the. Noble Lord, Lord Randall, and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lord, Lord Randall, and indeed everyone who's spoken in this group. I'll be very brief, starting with amendment 246, to starting with amendment 246, to which, as the noble lady Baroness Freeman said, I've attached my name, and I heard some expressions of and I heard some expressions of shock when the noble lady said, 30 million bird strikes a year. I heard expressions of shock from
18:03
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
heard expressions of shock from around me. That's 30 million deaths. And that's from the British Trust for ornithology. And there are, the estimate is 100 million bird strikes. And of course, the 30 million is the immediate deaths. Some of the strikes are birds that have suffered the fate the noble Lady Baroness Freeman set out whereby they suffer and get trapped. And who knows what happens to them in the longer term. You know, flying at full speed into a window is not good for you, even if it doesn't exactly kill you.
And I think, you know, around the world, the figures on this are billions. We are, as a species, care less. And yes, Hansard, I'm putting a hyphen in there. We are not taking care. And yet, as the noble Lady Baroness Freeman said, lots of countries are at least doing much better than we have. And surely we often hear Britain talked about as a nation of animal lovers, nation of bird lovers. We have the twitches all out there chasing when some rare species turned up.
Surely we can take this modest measure of 246. And I think the noble lady Baroness Freeman has listened to what the government said and adopted accordingly. That's what we're supposed to do. Just very briefly on amendment 140, to which the my noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb is attached her name, I actually had a much stronger amendment than this at committee, which I didn't bring back because I was just leaving all the really small and modest ones that the government could agree to.
For here at committee, I suggested that we should be building the entire fabric of of buildings to care for nature. And in fact, I spoke about it about it in a museum of exhibit that's working in that direction. And I have no doubt we are going to have to get to that direction. But how bad will the state of nature be before we get to that point? And how hard will the recovery be? And I just finally want to very much support the amendment in the name of the noble lady Baroness Coffey, but just pick up one word she said about newborns.
Of course, what we are seeing in some parts of the country in a limited way is the restoration is what's known as ghost ponds, some of which can be up to a thousand years old. And if you carefully excavate them and you know what you're doing and you've done the lidar survey first, you can actually get seeds that are a thousand years old germinating in the pond conditions when you've restored it that they originally can. And in East Anglia, there's 22 ponds that have done that and 136 species thought to be all historic seeds have come up in those ponds.
So making this a a way in which we can let these ponds free really is a win win.
And I think, you know, around the world, the figures on this are billions. We are, as a species, care less. And yes, Hansard, I'm putting a hyphen in there. We are not taking care. And yet, as the noble Lady Baroness Freeman said, lots of countries are at least doing much better than we have. And surely we often hear Britain talked about as a nation of animal lovers, nation of bird lovers. We have the twitches all out there chasing when some rare species turned up.
Surely we can take this modest measure of 246. And I think the noble lady Baroness Freeman has listened to what the government said and adopted accordingly. That's what we're supposed to do. Just very briefly on amendment 140, to which the my noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb is attached her name, I actually had a much stronger amendment than this at committee, which I didn't bring back because I was just leaving all the really small and modest ones that the government could agree to.
For here at committee, I suggested that we should be building the entire fabric of of buildings to care for nature. And in fact, I spoke about it about it in a museum of exhibit that's working in that direction. And I have no doubt we are going to have to get to that direction. But how bad will the state of nature be before we get to that point? And how hard will the recovery be? And I just finally want to very much support the amendment in the name of the noble lady Baroness Coffey, but just pick up one word she said about newborns.
Of course, what we are seeing in some parts of the country in a limited way is the restoration is what's known as ghost ponds, some of which can be up to a thousand years old. And if you carefully excavate them and you know what you're doing and you've done the lidar survey first, you can actually get seeds that are a thousand years old germinating in the pond conditions when you've restored it that they originally can. And in East Anglia, there's 22 ponds that have done that and 136 species thought to be all historic seeds have come up in those ponds.
So making this a a way in which we can let these ponds free really is a win win.
18:05
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group and in this side. We do share the passion expressed across the House for a biodiverse and environmentally rich country. The proposals brought forward here are all rightly focussed on boosting habitats for species and promoting nature. And we agree whole heartedly with our objective, which is clearly shared amongst noble lords on all benches. Now, whilst I know the government will resist these amendments at this stage, we hope these constructive proposals will be considered carefully by ministers and other officials ahead of the planned nature Bill, which we are told we should expect later in the Parliament.
My Lords, if I make a few short personal comments, which I think are relevant to the Bill in our little our little overgrown, deliberately overgrown garden up north, we've got five hedgehogs in it, we've got five hedgehogs because we've got five hedgehog houses. I end up spending a fortune on five litre drums of mealworms. So I'd say to the noble Lord Lord Krebs if he was in his place. Provide the habitat and the food and you'll get nature back. As far as bird strikes are concerned. On on on.
Amendment two. Four. Six. Some of the proposals there might seem expensive, but again, one found that spending £5 on some stickers to put on the window glass stopped overnight. 100% of bird strikes were flying into the the glass from the reflection from the trees in the garden. And my final observation is this I despair every week going going back up north to find yet another little garden being dug up and paved over. That removes the the chances for the hedgehogs to get the slugs and the flower bed, and there's no grass for the blackbirds to dig up the worms and my Lords that made personal observations, but I think they're relevant to the important amendments before us today.
Now, I mentioned the the nature bill, so perhaps I can take the opportunity to ask the noble Baroness to Minister for a timetable on their plans to introduce a nature Bill. When can we expect to be introduced to the Parliament? Will there be an opportunity for Pre-legislative scrutiny on the plan Bill? And I hope the noble Earl Minister will be able to give us a little bit of be able to give us a little bit of clarity on that.
My Lords, if I make a few short personal comments, which I think are relevant to the Bill in our little our little overgrown, deliberately overgrown garden up north, we've got five hedgehogs in it, we've got five hedgehogs because we've got five hedgehog houses. I end up spending a fortune on five litre drums of mealworms. So I'd say to the noble Lord Lord Krebs if he was in his place. Provide the habitat and the food and you'll get nature back. As far as bird strikes are concerned. On on on.
Amendment two. Four. Six. Some of the proposals there might seem expensive, but again, one found that spending £5 on some stickers to put on the window glass stopped overnight. 100% of bird strikes were flying into the the glass from the reflection from the trees in the garden. And my final observation is this I despair every week going going back up north to find yet another little garden being dug up and paved over. That removes the the chances for the hedgehogs to get the slugs and the flower bed, and there's no grass for the blackbirds to dig up the worms and my Lords that made personal observations, but I think they're relevant to the important amendments before us today.
Now, I mentioned the the nature bill, so perhaps I can take the opportunity to ask the noble Baroness to Minister for a timetable on their plans to introduce a nature Bill. When can we expect to be introduced to the Parliament? Will there be an opportunity for Pre-legislative scrutiny on the plan Bill? And I hope the noble Earl Minister will be able to give us a little bit of be able to give us a little bit of clarity on that.
18:07
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, we recognise that our many of our most precious species are in decline, and we're very clear that we need to restore the health of our ecosystems. I thank the noble Baroness Lady Grender, for her amendment, which seeks to enhance biodiversity in new development. However, as I set out previously, this is not about what we're doing. It's about the mechanism for doing it. And I think that's where we have an issue. We don't believe the use of building regulations is the best way of achieving our shared ambition, given that they are primarily used.
Building regs are for human health and safety. As I've explained, expanding their scope to deliver unrelated environmental objectives does risk weakening their clarity and efficacy and introducing delay and further complexity. The planning system already sets out to support biodiversity and achieve nature recovery, alongside the delivery of homes and infrastructure. Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. This is a significant step towards achieving our biodiversity targets set through the Environment Act.
As we've set out previously, planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve biodiversity in development should be integrated as part of their design, including wildlife friendly features. We will be consulting on a new requirement for integral nest boxes, which can support a range of cavity nesting birds including swifts, starlings and House sparrows. Additionally, planning guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England's Green Infrastructure Framework supports decision makers to select design elements which suit individual proposals, including green roofs and walls.
Hedgehog highways mentioned by the noble Baroness lady Freeman, bird, bricks, bird and bat boxes, and these can be used by local councils as a toolkit to set local design expectations. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness Lady Grender will agree to withdraw her amendment. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling amendment 203. However, as mentioned in the previous debate on a similar amendment, the government cannot support the introduction of a new permitted development right for ponds as an amendment to this bill.
We continue to recognise that ponds can deliver important biodiversity benefits, and we do want to encourage them in the right locations. We also note the benefits of ponds for farmers providing valuable sources of irrigation during dry periods. However, it remains the case that changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the General Permitted Development Order. Such changes generally follow public consultation to ensure that the views of the public, including those that will benefit from the rights created, are taken into account.
Consultation also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal, and consideration of how these might be mitigated. There are also existing permitted development rights which do enable the creation of ponds where appropriate, for example, under an agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions to manage and control their impacts. Homeowners can also create new ponds in their gardens under householder permitted development rights, again subject to certain limitations and conditions.
This amendment seeks to provide a national grant of planning permission for ponds across the whole of England, regardless of whether one would be appropriate in a particular location, such as on land used for public recreation, or in an area where it could increase flood risks. To ensure that ponds are appropriately located, there are circumstances where a planning application is appropriate. We therefore cannot support the amendment. However, as always, we continue to keep permitted development rights under review. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to amendment 246, I do recognise the desire to reduce bird fatalities which come from collisions with buildings, and I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for meeting with me ahead of this debate, to discuss her interest in ensuring that new buildings are designed to reduce bird fatalities. Amendment 246 seeks to ensure buildings incorporate features to reduce bird fatalities, particularly through design and the use of bird safe glass. By embedding bird safety within the National Planning Policy Framework.
The NPPF is already clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and the opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around development should be integrated as part of the design. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as the last resort compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Supporting guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England's Green Infrastructure Framework demonstrate how well-designed places can foster rich and varied biodiversity by facilitating habitats and movement for corridors for wildlife.
Local design codes allow for local authorities to set their own rules for high quality places. I'm very happy to consider what more can be done to promote the kinds of features that can help species safety that the noble Baronesses outlined. However, amending the NPPF to state that all new and refurbished developments should incorporate measures to prevent bird fatalities, such as bird safe glass, would extend the reach of planning considerably beyond the extent of current controls, and would likely increase construction, construction costs and design complexity, ultimately constraining the delivery of the housing and infrastructure we so desperately need.
In addition, while some types of development, such as large scale commercial schemes may warrant targeted interventions, a blanket requirement would not adequately adequately reflect the risks to species across diverse building types and locations. Bird fatalities due to collisions with buildings are a genuine concern, but a measure such as this has the potential to drive up costs and building delays without delivering proportionate benefits for nature. In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will agree to withdraw her amendment in response to the noble Lord Blencathra who did ask me a specific question around the nature Bill, I as he will know, that's the province of Defra.
I don't have an answer to him immediately. And if it's future legislation that is, you know, is not already planned for this session, I doubt we'll be able to answer his question as specifically as he wants it answered, but I will endeavour to seek advice from Defra about when forward.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, as I thank the noble lady, the Minister, for responding
Building regs are for human health and safety. As I've explained, expanding their scope to deliver unrelated environmental objectives does risk weakening their clarity and efficacy and introducing delay and further complexity. The planning system already sets out to support biodiversity and achieve nature recovery, alongside the delivery of homes and infrastructure. Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. This is a significant step towards achieving our biodiversity targets set through the Environment Act.
As we've set out previously, planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve biodiversity in development should be integrated as part of their design, including wildlife friendly features. We will be consulting on a new requirement for integral nest boxes, which can support a range of cavity nesting birds including swifts, starlings and House sparrows. Additionally, planning guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England's Green Infrastructure Framework supports decision makers to select design elements which suit individual proposals, including green roofs and walls.
Hedgehog highways mentioned by the noble Baroness lady Freeman, bird, bricks, bird and bat boxes, and these can be used by local councils as a toolkit to set local design expectations. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness Lady Grender will agree to withdraw her amendment. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling amendment 203. However, as mentioned in the previous debate on a similar amendment, the government cannot support the introduction of a new permitted development right for ponds as an amendment to this bill.
We continue to recognise that ponds can deliver important biodiversity benefits, and we do want to encourage them in the right locations. We also note the benefits of ponds for farmers providing valuable sources of irrigation during dry periods. However, it remains the case that changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the General Permitted Development Order. Such changes generally follow public consultation to ensure that the views of the public, including those that will benefit from the rights created, are taken into account.
Consultation also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal, and consideration of how these might be mitigated. There are also existing permitted development rights which do enable the creation of ponds where appropriate, for example, under an agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions to manage and control their impacts. Homeowners can also create new ponds in their gardens under householder permitted development rights, again subject to certain limitations and conditions.
This amendment seeks to provide a national grant of planning permission for ponds across the whole of England, regardless of whether one would be appropriate in a particular location, such as on land used for public recreation, or in an area where it could increase flood risks. To ensure that ponds are appropriately located, there are circumstances where a planning application is appropriate. We therefore cannot support the amendment. However, as always, we continue to keep permitted development rights under review. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to amendment 246, I do recognise the desire to reduce bird fatalities which come from collisions with buildings, and I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for meeting with me ahead of this debate, to discuss her interest in ensuring that new buildings are designed to reduce bird fatalities. Amendment 246 seeks to ensure buildings incorporate features to reduce bird fatalities, particularly through design and the use of bird safe glass. By embedding bird safety within the National Planning Policy Framework.
The NPPF is already clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and the opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around development should be integrated as part of the design. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as the last resort compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Supporting guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England's Green Infrastructure Framework demonstrate how well-designed places can foster rich and varied biodiversity by facilitating habitats and movement for corridors for wildlife.
Local design codes allow for local authorities to set their own rules for high quality places. I'm very happy to consider what more can be done to promote the kinds of features that can help species safety that the noble Baronesses outlined. However, amending the NPPF to state that all new and refurbished developments should incorporate measures to prevent bird fatalities, such as bird safe glass, would extend the reach of planning considerably beyond the extent of current controls, and would likely increase construction, construction costs and design complexity, ultimately constraining the delivery of the housing and infrastructure we so desperately need.
In addition, while some types of development, such as large scale commercial schemes may warrant targeted interventions, a blanket requirement would not adequately adequately reflect the risks to species across diverse building types and locations. Bird fatalities due to collisions with buildings are a genuine concern, but a measure such as this has the potential to drive up costs and building delays without delivering proportionate benefits for nature. In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will agree to withdraw her amendment in response to the noble Lord Blencathra who did ask me a specific question around the nature Bill, I as he will know, that's the province of Defra.
I don't have an answer to him immediately. And if it's future legislation that is, you know, is not already planned for this session, I doubt we'll be able to answer his question as specifically as he wants it answered, but I will endeavour to seek advice from Defra about when forward.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, as I thank the noble lady, the Minister, for responding
18:15
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
lady, the Minister, for responding to this amendment, as she says, the policy is clear and that may be the case, but the compulsion isn't. And those developers who can get away with not doing this, as we all know, will attempt to do that. The Swift Brick will be back, I believe, as early as Monday. But in the meantime, we will keep on working on this and I beg leave to withdraw this particular amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordship's. Pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now come. To the group of. Amendments beginning with amendment 141, clause. 56.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 141 Lord Roborough. My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 141, but will actually
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordship's. Pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now come. To the group of. Amendments beginning with amendment 141, clause. 56.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 141 Lord Roborough. My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 141, but will actually
18:15
Amendment:141
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
Amendment:141
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
amendment 141, but will actually only speak to my amendment 178, which is the amendment of mine in this group. It seeks to ensure that developers able to use the existing mitigation hierarchy in dealing with the impacts of their developments to the level that is practical and only deal with the residual liability under the mitigation hierarchy through contributions to the Nature Restoration Fund. This is important for developers and also for protecting the nascent biodiversity net gain markets. It gives flexibility and continues to ensure that the private sector plays a role, and will return to that in groups and future.
The noble Baroness. The minister was reassuring that this was the intention of the bill. I believe in Second Reading and in committee and also in private meetings. I wonder whether she can provide that reassurance in the House, and also give an indication of how this might work in practice. I look forward to my Noble friends lady coffee and Lord Lansley introducing their own amendments, both of which are excellent, and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will listen
**** Possible New Speaker ****
carefully to both. I beg to move. Amendment proposed and clause 56
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed and clause 56 En bloc, page 93, line two. Insert the words as printed on. The marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The marshalled list. My lord, may I just talk to amendment 69? In this group, which amendment 69? In this group, which is in my name, we did have a discussion about the question of the viability assessment processes the viability assessment processes at committee. Amendment 69 is at committee. Amendment 69 is essentially about encouraging early consultation with the development community. I should at this point, community. I should at this point, since it's relevant to say that I am. I have a registered interest as Chair of the Cambridgeshire and Chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire Development Forums, and although I've emphasised again, all although I've emphasised again, all of the comments I make on the bill are entirely my own views rather than any developer's views, this than any developer's views, this amendment 69 is about the sequencing.
Really. It seems to me sequencing. Really. It seems to me that in the making of an economic environmental delivery plan, there is a process of establishing not only the impacts to be mitigated, only the impacts to be mitigated, but also the charging schedule. And it is really important that at that stage in making an EDP that the development community is included. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to ensure that they take up the levy, which we will want them to do wherever possible, or indeed that the charging schedules are correctly structured in order to encourage that to happen and to deliver effectively the the objectives of the EDP.
Now, as far as I can see, there are regulations in clause 67. There is guidance in clause 75 and the regulatory regulations in clause 67 can be must be adhered to in the setting of a charging schedule under under clause 53. But in terms of how one consults on a draft environmental delivery plan, clause 58 sets out a long list of the people who should be consulted on an EDP. It consists of a minimum of eight different kinds of public authorities and then, says many other public authorities.
But the only consultation that is required on a draft EDP is with public authorities, and this is not good enough. The development community is going to undertake the development. The development community is going to pay the levy. The development community should be included in the consultation on a draft. EDP. I'm afraid since we our objective is that it is mostly a voluntary choice as to whether they go down the route of levy payments and an EDP we we run the risk of invalidating many of the objectives that we are trying to achieve through the establishment of an EDP.
So certainly wouldn't plan to press amendment 69, but I do hope that the Minister will be able to give me reassurance about using the consultation on the draft EDP and on the charging schedules in particular by way of consultation with the development community.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords my amendment 171A to clause 69 seeks to create an
The noble Baroness. The minister was reassuring that this was the intention of the bill. I believe in Second Reading and in committee and also in private meetings. I wonder whether she can provide that reassurance in the House, and also give an indication of how this might work in practice. I look forward to my Noble friends lady coffee and Lord Lansley introducing their own amendments, both of which are excellent, and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will listen
**** Possible New Speaker ****
carefully to both. I beg to move. Amendment proposed and clause 56
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed and clause 56 En bloc, page 93, line two. Insert the words as printed on. The marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The marshalled list. My lord, may I just talk to amendment 69? In this group, which amendment 69? In this group, which is in my name, we did have a discussion about the question of the viability assessment processes the viability assessment processes at committee. Amendment 69 is at committee. Amendment 69 is essentially about encouraging early consultation with the development community. I should at this point, community. I should at this point, since it's relevant to say that I am. I have a registered interest as Chair of the Cambridgeshire and Chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire Development Forums, and although I've emphasised again, all although I've emphasised again, all of the comments I make on the bill are entirely my own views rather than any developer's views, this than any developer's views, this amendment 69 is about the sequencing.
Really. It seems to me sequencing. Really. It seems to me that in the making of an economic environmental delivery plan, there is a process of establishing not only the impacts to be mitigated, only the impacts to be mitigated, but also the charging schedule. And it is really important that at that stage in making an EDP that the development community is included. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to ensure that they take up the levy, which we will want them to do wherever possible, or indeed that the charging schedules are correctly structured in order to encourage that to happen and to deliver effectively the the objectives of the EDP.
Now, as far as I can see, there are regulations in clause 67. There is guidance in clause 75 and the regulatory regulations in clause 67 can be must be adhered to in the setting of a charging schedule under under clause 53. But in terms of how one consults on a draft environmental delivery plan, clause 58 sets out a long list of the people who should be consulted on an EDP. It consists of a minimum of eight different kinds of public authorities and then, says many other public authorities.
But the only consultation that is required on a draft EDP is with public authorities, and this is not good enough. The development community is going to undertake the development. The development community is going to pay the levy. The development community should be included in the consultation on a draft. EDP. I'm afraid since we our objective is that it is mostly a voluntary choice as to whether they go down the route of levy payments and an EDP we we run the risk of invalidating many of the objectives that we are trying to achieve through the establishment of an EDP.
So certainly wouldn't plan to press amendment 69, but I do hope that the Minister will be able to give me reassurance about using the consultation on the draft EDP and on the charging schedules in particular by way of consultation with the development community.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords my amendment 171A to clause 69 seeks to create an
18:20
18:21
Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
developer would have to pay under a charging schedule towards the Nature Restoration Fund. It is Nature Restoration Fund. It is clearly been written by a planner and not by anyone interested in the environment. It provides that charges should be made with reference to the number of units constructed, or the floor space of constructed, or the floor space of the development, with reference to expected values of the development, planned uses of the building, and planned uses of the building, and even with reference to the rate of inflation.
Yet nowhere does it provide for a methodology to be provide for a methodology to be based on the amount of damage being caused to the protected species caused to the protected species covered by the EDP, to which the charging schedule should actually relate? This makes no sense. The relate? This makes no sense. The purpose of part three is essentially to create a mechanism whereby developers can pay whereby developers can pay financial compensation to the NRF in lieu of the damage their development might be causing to a development might be causing to a protected feature or species.
Yet those features are not even those features are not even afforded a mention in the long list of possible methods to calculate payments due a charging schedule that has no correlation to the actual harm caused to a protected actual harm caused to a protected species is unlikely to be able to deliver an improved conservation status for that species. Nor is it fair on developers, since those who avoid protected species and cause no harm would still be obliged to make a payment under a charging schedule.
And my amendment creates the option. And it's no more than that, my Lord. It adds to the numerous options already available for the government to address this weakness and make the payments due under a charging schedule, align with a protected species and features they are intended to restore. I look forward to the government's response.
Yet nowhere does it provide for a methodology to be provide for a methodology to be based on the amount of damage being caused to the protected species caused to the protected species covered by the EDP, to which the charging schedule should actually relate? This makes no sense. The relate? This makes no sense. The purpose of part three is essentially to create a mechanism whereby developers can pay whereby developers can pay financial compensation to the NRF in lieu of the damage their development might be causing to a development might be causing to a protected feature or species.
Yet those features are not even those features are not even afforded a mention in the long list of possible methods to calculate payments due a charging schedule that has no correlation to the actual harm caused to a protected actual harm caused to a protected species is unlikely to be able to deliver an improved conservation status for that species. Nor is it fair on developers, since those who avoid protected species and cause no harm would still be obliged to make a payment under a charging schedule.
And my amendment creates the option. And it's no more than that, my Lord. It adds to the numerous options already available for the government to address this weakness and make the payments due under a charging schedule, align with a protected species and features they are intended to restore. I look forward to the government's response.
18:22
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
My Lords I agree. of Dillington who is absolutely right. There's no way that this legislation in part three could have been crafted by anyone in Defra. It's absolutely been done by the local government department that shows in every single almost square inch of of what we read. But I turn to 173A, I was asked to table this by the CLA and what it is is about ring fencing, the nature restoration levy. The risk at the moment is that the nature ring fence only applies to expenditure of levy income by Natural England.
Now funds are transferred away from Natural England, or indeed, if the levy is collected and spent by another department or public body, both scenarios are actively permitted under this bill. The ring fence disappears. The overall design of part three therefore allows levy cash to be collected by Treasury and subsumed into wider government business, as well as to be used to fund Natural England's general functions. As compensation measures envisaged under EDPs are not legally required to be delivered. Part three creates a potentially substantial tax revenue stream for central government without any consultation or manifesto mandate.
If this ring fence isn't fixed, I expect The Chancellor won't be reading my speech. But I can imagine Treasury officials will be scrambling anywhere and everywhere to get money for variety of purposes. It is important for developers as it is for nature. This ring fence is watertight and that nature compensation measures are funded and credible. If levy cash is instead appropriated for different purposes, the lack of funding for nature compensation would be a material consideration in planning that would allow the refusal of planning permissions.
My Lords, the apprenticeship levy. It is well known that hundreds of millions billions of pounds was collected and then never applied to apprenticeships. We have to be mindful of the risks that could happen with this levy and whether nature will truly benefit.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
. My Lords, I've spoken about the
Now funds are transferred away from Natural England, or indeed, if the levy is collected and spent by another department or public body, both scenarios are actively permitted under this bill. The ring fence disappears. The overall design of part three therefore allows levy cash to be collected by Treasury and subsumed into wider government business, as well as to be used to fund Natural England's general functions. As compensation measures envisaged under EDPs are not legally required to be delivered. Part three creates a potentially substantial tax revenue stream for central government without any consultation or manifesto mandate.
If this ring fence isn't fixed, I expect The Chancellor won't be reading my speech. But I can imagine Treasury officials will be scrambling anywhere and everywhere to get money for variety of purposes. It is important for developers as it is for nature. This ring fence is watertight and that nature compensation measures are funded and credible. If levy cash is instead appropriated for different purposes, the lack of funding for nature compensation would be a material consideration in planning that would allow the refusal of planning permissions.
My Lords, the apprenticeship levy. It is well known that hundreds of millions billions of pounds was collected and then never applied to apprenticeships. We have to be mindful of the risks that could happen with this levy and whether nature will truly benefit.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
. My Lords, I've spoken about the
18:24
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I've spoken about the the lifetime of EDP and the enforceability of measures, but now we get to the price to be charged. we get to the price to be charged. And I'd like to amplify some of the points in amendment number one. For one, there are very large sums of money and long periods to be considered here, and I don't really care whether the Dclg or Defra has drafted all this stuff. None of them really understand how to discount a cash flow.
That's clear, because if you're someone who's bought a House from the developer Caithness, multiplied the present prices paid by the number of mitigations in a scheme, and got to multi-million pound sums, and wondered what would happen to the profit. Well, if only because the profit really depends on the annualised cost of providing the measures not in one year but over 80 years. Discounted back to the present value. And none of this understanding is in the bill. Now, I know that as part of the Norfolk Environmental Credits organisation, which I founded on behalf of the local councils, notwithstanding that we've sold over £10 million worth of mitigations.
The balance sheet value is zero because of the way that international accounting rules require us to discount the revenues against the costs over the whole period for 80 years. My Lords there's no Corporation Tax to be paid, there's no profit to be booked, only risks and liabilities to be hedged. Keeping our fingers crossed that inflation and interest is kept on top of until the last few years, possibly as far away as 75 years time when we'll all be dead and the money nearly exhausted.
Unless, of course, the the provider hasn't got his sums right, in which case he'd have gone bust years previously. Now, none of this is contemplated by the bill, and we discussed it at committee. But there's no more detail here. It report. But I do think it would be sensible for the Bill to contemplate some benchmark accounting standards to value the upfront cash contributions against the liabilities on a consistent basis. And the reason is because if we do that and get a level playing field, we will get private operators innovating, competing on the same basis to drive costs down while still maintaining the obligations.
But this bill is silent on all of this, and as a result, we'll never get the leading private markets in nature mitigation going, which will be a missed economic opportunity for our nation. So I ask the Minister what consideration has been given by the government to providing a consistency of accounting approach, coupled with the enforceability I spoke of in the previous group, Group ten. The bill is long on aspiration, but can absolutely conspicuously silent on the legal, contractual and commercial ways of achieving these objectives.
And without commercial contract ability, we're never going to get the delivery, so it's bound to fail unless these things are belatedly considered at Third Reading. But it's very late in the day.
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I've spoken about the the lifetime of EDP and the enforceability of measures, but now we get to the price to be charged. we get to the price to be charged. And I'd like to amplify some of the points in amendment number one. For one, there are very large sums of money and long periods to be considered here, and I don't really care whether the Dclg or Defra has drafted all this stuff. None of them really understand how to discount a cash flow.
That's clear, because if you're someone who's bought a House from the developer Caithness, multiplied the present prices paid by the number of mitigations in a scheme, and got to multi-million pound sums, and wondered what would happen to the profit. Well, if only because the profit really depends on the annualised cost of providing the measures not in one year but over 80 years. Discounted back to the present value. And none of this understanding is in the bill. Now, I know that as part of the Norfolk Environmental Credits organisation, which I founded on behalf of the local councils, notwithstanding that we've sold over £10 million worth of mitigations.
The balance sheet value is zero because of the way that international accounting rules require us to discount the revenues against the costs over the whole period for 80 years. My Lords there's no Corporation Tax to be paid, there's no profit to be booked, only risks and liabilities to be hedged. Keeping our fingers crossed that inflation and interest is kept on top of until the last few years, possibly as far away as 75 years time when we'll all be dead and the money nearly exhausted.
Unless, of course, the the provider hasn't got his sums right, in which case he'd have gone bust years previously. Now, none of this is contemplated by the bill, and we discussed it at committee. But there's no more detail here. It report. But I do think it would be sensible for the Bill to contemplate some benchmark accounting standards to value the upfront cash contributions against the liabilities on a consistent basis. And the reason is because if we do that and get a level playing field, we will get private operators innovating, competing on the same basis to drive costs down while still maintaining the obligations.
But this bill is silent on all of this, and as a result, we'll never get the leading private markets in nature mitigation going, which will be a missed economic opportunity for our nation. So I ask the Minister what consideration has been given by the government to providing a consistency of accounting approach, coupled with the enforceability I spoke of in the previous group, Group ten. The bill is long on aspiration, but can absolutely conspicuously silent on the legal, contractual and commercial ways of achieving these objectives.
And without commercial contract ability, we're never going to get the delivery, so it's bound to fail unless these things are belatedly considered at Third Reading. But it's very late in the day.
18:27
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
My Lords, I will first address
**** Possible New Speaker ****
within this group those amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. Which relates to the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which relates to the. Regulation making powers governing the Nature Restoration Levy. It is worth highlighting. That the Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That the Bill. Provides the. Framework for. The detail of how the levy will operate, will be brought. Forward through. Regulations
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Forward through. Regulations laid under the. both. Houses of Parliament an opportunity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opportunity. To debate them. Turning first to amendments 141 and. 175, which. Would preclude.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Natural England from including the cost of purchasing land in the nature restoration Levy, and would prevent Natural England from prevent Natural England from spending levy income on land acquired by a compulsory purchase.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Nature Restoration Fund is being designed to work on a cost recovery basis. Given the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given the. Potential for Adps to address a wide range of different matters, there may be circumstances where there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land under CPO or by negotiation is required to deliver the most appropriate and deliver the most appropriate and cost effective conservation measures, ensuring that these costs measures, ensuring that these costs are therefore able to be covered by the levy will support Natural England to deliver against the England to deliver against the overall improvement test for an EDP.
While I recognise the noble Lord concerns around the use of compulsory purchase, allowing. For these powers is crucial to ensure there is certainty that, where necessary and appropriate land can be acquired to deliver conservation measures and that these costs are recoverable. Consultation on EDP will provide the opportunity to scrutinise the measures to be covered by the levy and, as an additional safeguard, compulsory purchase powers can only be used with the approval of the Secretary of State. With this explanation, I would hope that the noble Lord would agree to withdraw these amendments.
Turning now to amendment 176, limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure as proposed by this amendment, would constrain. Natural England's ability to plan for the most efficient conservation measures and prepare for unforeseen circumstances, including deploying any necessary backup measures. This amendment would also undermine the ability of EDPs to cover the costs of ongoing maintenance and upkeep of conservation measures in respect of amendment 177, which seeks to ensure regulations will include provisions about the return of any money which is no longer needed for delivering an EDP to the parties which appeared in the EDP.
As mentioned within committee, the scope of the regulation making powers in clause 71 are already sufficient to allow for the appropriate management of any unspent funds, as well as allowing for any any necessary refund procedures. Amendment 171 78 seeks to allow the Nature Restoration Levy Regulations to impose a liability to pay into the Nature Restoration Fund, where the impact of development cannot be fully dealt with through through the mitigation hierarchy. The existing scope of the Levy regulations provision regulations provisions already allows for different rates to be charged to reflect the varying impact of development.
This will allow the levy to reflect where development developers have taken action to reduce the impact of their development. However, should a developer choose to use the existing system, then there would need to assess and address the full impact of their development through that system. As the legislation already accommodates the scenario envisaged by the amendment, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw it. Turning to amendment 169, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, which would allow the levy regulations to manage the process by which Natural England would consult relevant developers on charging schemes and conduct a prospective viability assessment ahead of bringing any EDP into force.
As noble Lord will be aware, clause 58 requires that all Adps, including their charging schedules, must be subject to public consultation before an EDP can be sent to the Secretary of State to consider. As such, any developer who may wish to use the EDP in future will be able to provide their views. In addition, it could be many years between an EDP start date and a particular development coming forward. So conducting a bespoke viability assessment at the draft EDP stage is unlikely to be feasible.
Nature Restoration Levy regulations will, however, already be required to ensure that the cost of the levy does not make development unviable and therefore confident that what the noble Lord is trying to achieve is already included within the legislation. And so I hope with this explanation that the noble Lord fails Cohen content to withdraw his amendment. Amendment 173 year. Turning to table by the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey seeks to clarify that when money from the nature the nature restoration Levy is passed to another body, then that must be spent on conservation measures.
The government and the legislation is clear that the Nature Restoration Levy regulations must require Natural England to spend money received on conservation measures that relate to the environmental feature in relation to which the levy is charged. Where another public authority provided by Natural England with money paid in in the levy, this could also only be for the purpose of delivering these conservation measures. I would hope that with this clarification that the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw amendment.
My Lords, we now turn to amendment 17171 er tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which would provide that levy regulations may operate by reference to the population of a protected species and for an ecological ecological assessment to be carried out to inform this calculation. I can assure the noble Lords that the Bill already ensures that the impact of development on protected species is suitably considered throughout the EDP process, and that the charging schedule can be set accordingly.
Clause 69 provides for the levy to to draw on the actual unexpected cost of conservation measures. It also permits that the levy may allow for a variation of costs based or based on a range of factors, including the expected levy of impact, and for charging schedules to adopt different methods of calculating the applicable rate, and preparing an EDP that relates to a protected species. The bill will also already require information about the population to describe the conservation status of that species, and explain how the EDP will contribute towards achieving favourable conservation status and having regard to the best available scientific evidence, with the reassurance that these matters are already provided for elsewhere in the Bill.
I hope the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments. Before, just. Before the noble Lord. Sits down.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sits down. Could I ask him, just in plain English, to clarify a couple of questions? The first is, am I right to understand that unspent levy money paid by a developer will not money paid by a developer will not be returned to them? That will just be kept by Natural England to spend as they see fit? That's my first as they see fit? That's my first question. My second question is, could you have a situation where a could you have a situation where a developer pays the levy and then is compulsorily purchased and his own money, her own money is then used money, her own money is then used to buy the land off them under compulsory purchase.
That seems
**** Possible New Speaker ****
somewhat inequitable to me. OK. I mean, can I just say to the noble Lord, but I'll write you the noble Lord, but I'll write you in on those two issues, if that's if that's possible. OK. Thanks very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
much. My Lords, I can't say I've heard satisfactory answers really to to satisfactory answers really to to many of the amendments in this group. I certainly don't feel satisfied that there will be a way satisfied that there will be a way of developer paying, making a partial contribution to the NRF and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
within this group those amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. Which relates to the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Which relates to the. Regulation making powers governing the Nature Restoration Levy. It is worth highlighting. That the Bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That the Bill. Provides the. Framework for. The detail of how the levy will operate, will be brought. Forward through. Regulations
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Forward through. Regulations laid under the. both. Houses of Parliament an opportunity.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opportunity. To debate them. Turning first to amendments 141 and. 175, which. Would preclude.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Natural England from including the cost of purchasing land in the nature restoration Levy, and would prevent Natural England from prevent Natural England from spending levy income on land acquired by a compulsory purchase.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The Nature Restoration Fund is being designed to work on a cost recovery basis. Given the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Given the. Potential for Adps to address a wide range of different matters, there may be circumstances where there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land under CPO or by negotiation is required to deliver the most appropriate and deliver the most appropriate and cost effective conservation measures, ensuring that these costs measures, ensuring that these costs are therefore able to be covered by the levy will support Natural England to deliver against the England to deliver against the overall improvement test for an EDP.
While I recognise the noble Lord concerns around the use of compulsory purchase, allowing. For these powers is crucial to ensure there is certainty that, where necessary and appropriate land can be acquired to deliver conservation measures and that these costs are recoverable. Consultation on EDP will provide the opportunity to scrutinise the measures to be covered by the levy and, as an additional safeguard, compulsory purchase powers can only be used with the approval of the Secretary of State. With this explanation, I would hope that the noble Lord would agree to withdraw these amendments.
Turning now to amendment 176, limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure as proposed by this amendment, would constrain. Natural England's ability to plan for the most efficient conservation measures and prepare for unforeseen circumstances, including deploying any necessary backup measures. This amendment would also undermine the ability of EDPs to cover the costs of ongoing maintenance and upkeep of conservation measures in respect of amendment 177, which seeks to ensure regulations will include provisions about the return of any money which is no longer needed for delivering an EDP to the parties which appeared in the EDP.
As mentioned within committee, the scope of the regulation making powers in clause 71 are already sufficient to allow for the appropriate management of any unspent funds, as well as allowing for any any necessary refund procedures. Amendment 171 78 seeks to allow the Nature Restoration Levy Regulations to impose a liability to pay into the Nature Restoration Fund, where the impact of development cannot be fully dealt with through through the mitigation hierarchy. The existing scope of the Levy regulations provision regulations provisions already allows for different rates to be charged to reflect the varying impact of development.
This will allow the levy to reflect where development developers have taken action to reduce the impact of their development. However, should a developer choose to use the existing system, then there would need to assess and address the full impact of their development through that system. As the legislation already accommodates the scenario envisaged by the amendment, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw it. Turning to amendment 169, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Lansley, which would allow the levy regulations to manage the process by which Natural England would consult relevant developers on charging schemes and conduct a prospective viability assessment ahead of bringing any EDP into force.
As noble Lord will be aware, clause 58 requires that all Adps, including their charging schedules, must be subject to public consultation before an EDP can be sent to the Secretary of State to consider. As such, any developer who may wish to use the EDP in future will be able to provide their views. In addition, it could be many years between an EDP start date and a particular development coming forward. So conducting a bespoke viability assessment at the draft EDP stage is unlikely to be feasible.
Nature Restoration Levy regulations will, however, already be required to ensure that the cost of the levy does not make development unviable and therefore confident that what the noble Lord is trying to achieve is already included within the legislation. And so I hope with this explanation that the noble Lord fails Cohen content to withdraw his amendment. Amendment 173 year. Turning to table by the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey seeks to clarify that when money from the nature the nature restoration Levy is passed to another body, then that must be spent on conservation measures.
The government and the legislation is clear that the Nature Restoration Levy regulations must require Natural England to spend money received on conservation measures that relate to the environmental feature in relation to which the levy is charged. Where another public authority provided by Natural England with money paid in in the levy, this could also only be for the purpose of delivering these conservation measures. I would hope that with this clarification that the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw amendment.
My Lords, we now turn to amendment 17171 er tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which would provide that levy regulations may operate by reference to the population of a protected species and for an ecological ecological assessment to be carried out to inform this calculation. I can assure the noble Lords that the Bill already ensures that the impact of development on protected species is suitably considered throughout the EDP process, and that the charging schedule can be set accordingly.
Clause 69 provides for the levy to to draw on the actual unexpected cost of conservation measures. It also permits that the levy may allow for a variation of costs based or based on a range of factors, including the expected levy of impact, and for charging schedules to adopt different methods of calculating the applicable rate, and preparing an EDP that relates to a protected species. The bill will also already require information about the population to describe the conservation status of that species, and explain how the EDP will contribute towards achieving favourable conservation status and having regard to the best available scientific evidence, with the reassurance that these matters are already provided for elsewhere in the Bill.
I hope the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments. Before, just. Before the noble Lord. Sits down.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Sits down. Could I ask him, just in plain English, to clarify a couple of questions? The first is, am I right to understand that unspent levy money paid by a developer will not money paid by a developer will not be returned to them? That will just be kept by Natural England to spend as they see fit? That's my first as they see fit? That's my first question. My second question is, could you have a situation where a could you have a situation where a developer pays the levy and then is compulsorily purchased and his own money, her own money is then used money, her own money is then used to buy the land off them under compulsory purchase.
That seems
**** Possible New Speaker ****
somewhat inequitable to me. OK. I mean, can I just say to the noble Lord, but I'll write you the noble Lord, but I'll write you in on those two issues, if that's if that's possible. OK. Thanks very
**** Possible New Speaker ****
much. My Lords, I can't say I've heard satisfactory answers really to to satisfactory answers really to to many of the amendments in this group. I certainly don't feel satisfied that there will be a way satisfied that there will be a way of developer paying, making a partial contribution to the NRF and
18:36
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
doing what he can on his own site. You know, I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her amendment 130 earlier, which actually basically resolves this problem as it does with many other in this part of the bill. I thought Lord Cameron of Dillington point about the charging schedules was was extremely well made, and I think the House is well aware that this bill is a planning bill. And this section of the bill relates to Defra. And I think it's very encouraging that the noble Baroness, the Minister, Lady Harman, inform the House the other day that this part of the bill would be governed by the Secretary of State for Defra, which gives some optimism that charging schedule might actually relate to nature when it's put down.
But with that, I beg leave to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is. By leave withdrawn. Amendment 142 Lord Roborough not moved. And amendment 143 Lord Roborough not me, not me. We now come to the group of amendments come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 144. In clause 58, amendment 144 Lord Roborough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Roborough. My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 144 and speak to the other amendments very briefly in other amendments very briefly in this group at committee stage, the noble Baroness, the Minister suggested that farmers, fishermen and landowners likely to be impacted by an EDP would have a chance to be consulted, but only through the public consultation exercise. My Lords, I still don't believe that is enough. Many public and private bodies are listed as statutory consultees, but not those people who are going to be most people who are going to be most directly impacted by by the EDP.
I do not intend to push these amendments to a vote, but I hope the noble Baroness or the noble the noble Baroness or the noble Earl Lord the minister in this case perhaps can give some reassurance that guidance will require that these interested parties, these interested parties, proactively consulted by mail or similar to ensure they are aware of the proposals, and also that their the proposals, and also that their views are sought after. Amendment 178 A and my name and supported by my noble friend, the Earl of Caithness.
Ensures that farmers are given adequate opportunity to participate in Edp's as suppliers. It also requires a guidance document to be published so that farmers know how to provide these services to Natural England the noble Baroness. The Minister has made encouraging comments in committee and at Second Reading about the role of farmers and the wider private sector in providing these services and meetings have also been reassuring how public sector procurement rules will help. However, I do not believe that this is enough.
The bill makes no mention of the private sector being engaged in this, and I believe it needs to be reflected in the bill. In fact, the amendments I prefer in this group is amendment 182 A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. And I would very much like to look forward to listening to his introduction of that amendment. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg to move. Amendment proposed in clause 58, line 25. Insert the words printed on Marshall List.
But with that, I beg leave to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is. By leave withdrawn. Amendment 142 Lord Roborough not moved. And amendment 143 Lord Roborough not me, not me. We now come to the group of amendments come to the group of amendments beginning with amendment 144. In clause 58, amendment 144 Lord Roborough.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Roborough. My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 144 and speak to the other amendments very briefly in other amendments very briefly in this group at committee stage, the noble Baroness, the Minister suggested that farmers, fishermen and landowners likely to be impacted by an EDP would have a chance to be consulted, but only through the public consultation exercise. My Lords, I still don't believe that is enough. Many public and private bodies are listed as statutory consultees, but not those people who are going to be most people who are going to be most directly impacted by by the EDP.
I do not intend to push these amendments to a vote, but I hope the noble Baroness or the noble the noble Baroness or the noble Earl Lord the minister in this case perhaps can give some reassurance that guidance will require that these interested parties, these interested parties, proactively consulted by mail or similar to ensure they are aware of the proposals, and also that their the proposals, and also that their views are sought after. Amendment 178 A and my name and supported by my noble friend, the Earl of Caithness.
Ensures that farmers are given adequate opportunity to participate in Edp's as suppliers. It also requires a guidance document to be published so that farmers know how to provide these services to Natural England the noble Baroness. The Minister has made encouraging comments in committee and at Second Reading about the role of farmers and the wider private sector in providing these services and meetings have also been reassuring how public sector procurement rules will help. However, I do not believe that this is enough.
The bill makes no mention of the private sector being engaged in this, and I believe it needs to be reflected in the bill. In fact, the amendments I prefer in this group is amendment 182 A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. And I would very much like to look forward to listening to his introduction of that amendment. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg to move. Amendment proposed in clause 58, line 25. Insert the words printed on Marshall List.
18:39
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on Marshall List. My Lords. I rise. To speak to amendment 182. A but firstly, I would. Like to support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Like to support. The other amendments in this grouping, particularly 178 A tabled grouping, particularly 178 A tabled by the noble Lord Roborough. As Minister aware, the majority of farmers are very keen to engage in delivering environmental benefits and increasingly collaborating together geographically on landscape schemes. It would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
entirely appropriate. To use. This expertise to deliver environmental services, building on environmental services, building on existing commitments. Who's best qualified to provide value for money than those with local money than those with local knowledge, and an existing track record of delivering environmental record of delivering environmental goods? Let me enlarge on the reasoning for tabling amendment 182 a and may I thank the noble Lords a and may I thank the noble Lords Rover and Cromwell for their support for this amendment.
This seeks to amend clause 76 on the seeks to amend clause 76 on the administration, implementation, and monitoring of EDPs. I would like firstly to thank ministers for their helpful letter of the 13th of October. I read the letter a number October. I read the letter a number of times before deciding whether to table this amendment. Was I satisfied that the assurances given satisfied that the assurances given in the letter that, to quote, we will expect Natural England to will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competitive procurement approaches for Edps wherever possible.
Is that adequate? My Lords, I concluded that this requirement should be on the face requirement should be on the face of the bill and not just advisory. Let me try to explain why I'm Let me try to explain why I'm concerned. The purpose of this bill, as we've heard a number of times, is to speed up the planning and development process to enable government to deliver its housing ambitions and critical infrastructure plans. There is, however, a deep cynicism and suspicion that the throw to throw Natural England into the mix, into the planning and development process, will absolutely not speed it up.
I'm afraid I do not share the confidence of the Minister. It's not a criticism of Natural England, but the involvement of an arm's length public body. Any public body will, due to its culture and accountability, lead to layers of bureaucracy that did not exist before. As the noble Baroness Willis stated earlier, the spades might start digging a few days earlier, but there will certainly be a delay in the delivery of the EDPs. It's inevitable. As I mentioned at Second Reading. Most developers have now established relationships responsible developers, that is, with consultants, ecologists, contractors that understand the current obligations and requirements in regard to local nature, strategies, biodiversity, net gain, etc.
that may not have been the case a few years ago, but is definitely the case today. Why disrupt a model that has been established and is now working well? This amendment will almost certainly guarantee that the process will speed up, because those involved in market solutions will be determined to prove they have a solution before Natural England get their sticky hands on the development and impose a levy and increase the costs involved involved. My Lords, I have another broader concern which has been referenced before.
Government and Natural England have tried to reassure us that Natural England will be adequately resourced to carry out this additional function. It will be able to siphon off the levy, which of course will add to development costs. I'm very surprised indeed, in view of the very serious pressure on the public purse, if The Chancellor does not bear down on expenditure in the autumn budget, including arm's length public bodies. My Lords, this amendment is an attempt to improve the Bill by insisting that Natural England allow and allow and indeed encourage private market solutions to prove that they have a solution to deliver the conservation and ecological measures necessary before any take it in House, with all the bureaucracy that will then entail.
I look forward to my Lord the Minister's response, but may I wish to take this amendment further and beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I've added my name to 1828 that has just been so ably introduced by Lord Currie, and I
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on Marshall List. My Lords. I rise. To speak to amendment 182. A but firstly, I would. Like to support.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Like to support. The other amendments in this grouping, particularly 178 A tabled grouping, particularly 178 A tabled by the noble Lord Roborough. As Minister aware, the majority of farmers are very keen to engage in delivering environmental benefits and increasingly collaborating together geographically on landscape schemes. It would be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
entirely appropriate. To use. This expertise to deliver environmental services, building on environmental services, building on existing commitments. Who's best qualified to provide value for money than those with local money than those with local knowledge, and an existing track record of delivering environmental record of delivering environmental goods? Let me enlarge on the reasoning for tabling amendment 182 a and may I thank the noble Lords a and may I thank the noble Lords Rover and Cromwell for their support for this amendment.
This seeks to amend clause 76 on the seeks to amend clause 76 on the administration, implementation, and monitoring of EDPs. I would like firstly to thank ministers for their helpful letter of the 13th of October. I read the letter a number October. I read the letter a number of times before deciding whether to table this amendment. Was I satisfied that the assurances given satisfied that the assurances given in the letter that, to quote, we will expect Natural England to will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competitive procurement approaches for Edps wherever possible.
Is that adequate? My Lords, I concluded that this requirement should be on the face requirement should be on the face of the bill and not just advisory. Let me try to explain why I'm Let me try to explain why I'm concerned. The purpose of this bill, as we've heard a number of times, is to speed up the planning and development process to enable government to deliver its housing ambitions and critical infrastructure plans. There is, however, a deep cynicism and suspicion that the throw to throw Natural England into the mix, into the planning and development process, will absolutely not speed it up.
I'm afraid I do not share the confidence of the Minister. It's not a criticism of Natural England, but the involvement of an arm's length public body. Any public body will, due to its culture and accountability, lead to layers of bureaucracy that did not exist before. As the noble Baroness Willis stated earlier, the spades might start digging a few days earlier, but there will certainly be a delay in the delivery of the EDPs. It's inevitable. As I mentioned at Second Reading. Most developers have now established relationships responsible developers, that is, with consultants, ecologists, contractors that understand the current obligations and requirements in regard to local nature, strategies, biodiversity, net gain, etc.
that may not have been the case a few years ago, but is definitely the case today. Why disrupt a model that has been established and is now working well? This amendment will almost certainly guarantee that the process will speed up, because those involved in market solutions will be determined to prove they have a solution before Natural England get their sticky hands on the development and impose a levy and increase the costs involved involved. My Lords, I have another broader concern which has been referenced before.
Government and Natural England have tried to reassure us that Natural England will be adequately resourced to carry out this additional function. It will be able to siphon off the levy, which of course will add to development costs. I'm very surprised indeed, in view of the very serious pressure on the public purse, if The Chancellor does not bear down on expenditure in the autumn budget, including arm's length public bodies. My Lords, this amendment is an attempt to improve the Bill by insisting that Natural England allow and allow and indeed encourage private market solutions to prove that they have a solution to deliver the conservation and ecological measures necessary before any take it in House, with all the bureaucracy that will then entail.
I look forward to my Lord the Minister's response, but may I wish to take this amendment further and beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I've added my name to 1828 that has just been so ably introduced by Lord Currie, and I
18:43
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
introduced by Lord Currie, and I have very little to add other than to say I actually support all the amendments in this group, particularly 178 as he does. My Lords, implementation of monitoring of this very ambitious project needs a proper open tender process for two basic reasons value for money, and the fact that the private sector locally is including farmers going to know the land, know the systems, know the available resources far better than rather Uncharitably described sticky fingers of Natural England.
But then I did earlier suggest they might run amok, so perhaps I shouldn't be too too bold. Natural England engagement in direct delivery if they can actually deliver it, which is a question mark, should surely be the last resort, and it will almost certainly be considerably more expensive. I thoroughly support my colleague, the noble Lord Currie, in his amendment. My Lords, I rise to talk briefly in support of 182A in the name of the noble Lord Currie. Now, this Bill should be shaping how private operators will be addressing the market for mitigation.
Instead, we've got Natural England becoming a monopoly supplier of mitigations in a drive to nationalise nature and in so doing, potentially driving out private initiative. Now, in an earlier group, I touched on the distinction very briefly on permitting and licensing. And in my view, licensing is the way to go because it prevents the derivative secondary markets that enrich the speculators at the expense of delivering the outcome. And my Lords, we can't afford to create, by way of permitting the new, a new milk quota disaster for those with long memories where the mitigation industry just became a collateralised asset class that have everything to do with speculation and nothing to do with nature recovery.
Now, that's not an argument against private involvement, but it is an argument for channelling and regulating what is a fast developing industry, an industry where we have global leadership and the encouragement of which will enrich our economy. We just need to avoid the Wild West that I have seen emerging amongst some chances who are taking the
But then I did earlier suggest they might run amok, so perhaps I shouldn't be too too bold. Natural England engagement in direct delivery if they can actually deliver it, which is a question mark, should surely be the last resort, and it will almost certainly be considerably more expensive. I thoroughly support my colleague, the noble Lord Currie, in his amendment. My Lords, I rise to talk briefly in support of 182A in the name of the noble Lord Currie. Now, this Bill should be shaping how private operators will be addressing the market for mitigation.
Instead, we've got Natural England becoming a monopoly supplier of mitigations in a drive to nationalise nature and in so doing, potentially driving out private initiative. Now, in an earlier group, I touched on the distinction very briefly on permitting and licensing. And in my view, licensing is the way to go because it prevents the derivative secondary markets that enrich the speculators at the expense of delivering the outcome. And my Lords, we can't afford to create, by way of permitting the new, a new milk quota disaster for those with long memories where the mitigation industry just became a collateralised asset class that have everything to do with speculation and nothing to do with nature recovery.
Now, that's not an argument against private involvement, but it is an argument for channelling and regulating what is a fast developing industry, an industry where we have global leadership and the encouragement of which will enrich our economy. We just need to avoid the Wild West that I have seen emerging amongst some chances who are taking the
18:46
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
money, spending it on Ferraris rather than laying it down to provide mitigations for the entire provide mitigations for the entire liability period. Now I'm concerned about the scientific lack, of lack of scientific rigour, Natural England, and the lack of appreciation that others apart from themselves want to innovate and join the market in this space. And join the market in this space. And I'm concerned that the role of for private ecologists with new ideas, innovating with new techniques or innovating with new techniques or technologies and so forth will be discouraged, will be discouraged.
discouraged, will be discouraged. I'm concerned we're going to be led with the dead hand of Natural England telling people what to do. England telling people what to do. My Lords, it's an heroic assumption to assume that Natural England will be able to deliver mitigation more be able to deliver mitigation more efficiently than a competitive, healthy private sector. Given the monopolistic nature of the state monopolistic nature of the state owned mechanism for charging and the speed at which their large bureaucracy sort of creeps ahead.
bureaucracy sort of creeps ahead. My Lords, with their obvious conflicts of interest, how are Natural England going to Kitemark private proposals? Success doesn't look like one where only their look like one where only their schemes have some sort of kitemark accreditation, or they have uniquely an engineered first mover advantage. What protections would private operators have against predatory pricing, or the loading of legal contract or inspection costs onto innovative solutions by Natural England, with the only opportunity from the private from the private business to appeal against the organisation that's eating their lunch.
My Lords, we need innovation and private providers so we avoid the muddled thinking and groupthink from the UQs zealots that bought us the bat bridge, or the impropriety of the Ebbsfleet situation. We must have streamlined processes where developers can work with landowners to propose and have certified good schemes delivered in local markets at sensible prices, quickly. We need to establish regulated private markets for nature to to avoid the situation where schemes will just be packaged and collateralised into some other sub prime crisis.
The private sector has a role and could work in tandem with Natural England, but warm words mean nothing unless they are committed to law, and the bill needs to explicitly state that the private sector has a role to play. Importantly, that Natural England has the statutory duty to assist competition in this space, even if it is against their own narrow self-interest. Now, amendment one A2 talks about provision of guidance, and even at this late stage, might I invite the Minister to explain the nature of the guidance, guidance that might be implemented for the encouragement of private industry and and with the regulatory guardrails and the need to encourage Natural England to to help rather than hinder private delivery in this space.
delivery in this space.
discouraged, will be discouraged. I'm concerned we're going to be led with the dead hand of Natural England telling people what to do. England telling people what to do. My Lords, it's an heroic assumption to assume that Natural England will be able to deliver mitigation more be able to deliver mitigation more efficiently than a competitive, healthy private sector. Given the monopolistic nature of the state monopolistic nature of the state owned mechanism for charging and the speed at which their large bureaucracy sort of creeps ahead.
bureaucracy sort of creeps ahead. My Lords, with their obvious conflicts of interest, how are Natural England going to Kitemark private proposals? Success doesn't look like one where only their look like one where only their schemes have some sort of kitemark accreditation, or they have uniquely an engineered first mover advantage. What protections would private operators have against predatory pricing, or the loading of legal contract or inspection costs onto innovative solutions by Natural England, with the only opportunity from the private from the private business to appeal against the organisation that's eating their lunch.
My Lords, we need innovation and private providers so we avoid the muddled thinking and groupthink from the UQs zealots that bought us the bat bridge, or the impropriety of the Ebbsfleet situation. We must have streamlined processes where developers can work with landowners to propose and have certified good schemes delivered in local markets at sensible prices, quickly. We need to establish regulated private markets for nature to to avoid the situation where schemes will just be packaged and collateralised into some other sub prime crisis.
The private sector has a role and could work in tandem with Natural England, but warm words mean nothing unless they are committed to law, and the bill needs to explicitly state that the private sector has a role to play. Importantly, that Natural England has the statutory duty to assist competition in this space, even if it is against their own narrow self-interest. Now, amendment one A2 talks about provision of guidance, and even at this late stage, might I invite the Minister to explain the nature of the guidance, guidance that might be implemented for the encouragement of private industry and and with the regulatory guardrails and the need to encourage Natural England to to help rather than hinder private delivery in this space.
delivery in this space.
18:48
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
My Lords, I will first address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robert, in this group, which seek to amplify the role of farmers in providing nature nurture services in respect of part three of the Bill, as well as probe the consultation requirements for EDPs for specific groups, including farmers, landowners and fishing businesses. My Lords, I should begin by reiterating that Natural England will, of course, work with local landowners, private providers and farmers in the delivery of conservation measures under EDPs.
The bill is therefore being drafted to enable delegation, delegation and partnership working with third parties. This may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessment, and in the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs represent an opportunity for growth in nature, services, markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses as committed during committee stage. The government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs.
This guidance will be clear, but but open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to prefer preferentially adopt competition procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary. While I applaud the noble Lord for acting as a champion for the interests of farmers, I hope that this explanation provides sufficient assurance that there is a clear role for farmers and landowners in making the NRF a success.
Regarding the Noble Lords, amendments relating to consultation requirements with specific groups, as the noble Lord will be aware, every EDP will be subject to statutory public consultation to ensure that everyone with an interest in an EDP has the opportunity to comment. These responses will be shared with the Secretary of State when they are considered whether to make an EDP. This consultation can run for no fewer than 28 days and can be extended through regulation. We understand that different sectors will have specific interests in EDPs depending on their content, as each EDP will vary based on location and the issues it addresses.
Of course, we recognise that farmers and the fishing industry are particularly important sectors and their views should be heard. However, given the large number of farming and fishing businesses that we have, it would not be practical or helpful to legally require Natural England to contact each one directly and personally during the formal public public consultation. Nor can Natural England require any private business to respond to a consultation. We believe the bill strikes the right balance, ensuring public consultation and engagement with the responses from landowners and businesses forming part of the Secretary of State.
Consideration of EDP. And with this explanation, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his various amendments. Turning finally to amendment one, A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which seeks to introduce a requirement for Natural England to pay another person to deliver conservation measures and the related monitoring measures that are required within the EDP. As I have set out previously, we are clear that Natural England will work with third parties and private providers when delivering conservation measures and associated activities under the NRF, such as monitoring.
And as I have set out, we agree with the Noble Lords intention to ensure that private markets and other expert organisations can support the role roll out of the Natural Restoration Fund through delivering conservation measures. However, while we expect Natural England to adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, there may be some instances where direct delivery will be necessary and appropriate. We would not wish for the legislation to remove this option where it would deliver better value for money, better environmental outcomes, or both.
And with this explanation, I hope the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will withdraw his amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister for, for sticking to his brief. We I think there wasn't his brief. We I think there wasn't enough here to satisfy certainly these benches enabling private sector engagement, not requiring it,
The bill is therefore being drafted to enable delegation, delegation and partnership working with third parties. This may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessment, and in the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs represent an opportunity for growth in nature, services, markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses as committed during committee stage. The government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs.
This guidance will be clear, but but open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to prefer preferentially adopt competition procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary. While I applaud the noble Lord for acting as a champion for the interests of farmers, I hope that this explanation provides sufficient assurance that there is a clear role for farmers and landowners in making the NRF a success.
Regarding the Noble Lords, amendments relating to consultation requirements with specific groups, as the noble Lord will be aware, every EDP will be subject to statutory public consultation to ensure that everyone with an interest in an EDP has the opportunity to comment. These responses will be shared with the Secretary of State when they are considered whether to make an EDP. This consultation can run for no fewer than 28 days and can be extended through regulation. We understand that different sectors will have specific interests in EDPs depending on their content, as each EDP will vary based on location and the issues it addresses.
Of course, we recognise that farmers and the fishing industry are particularly important sectors and their views should be heard. However, given the large number of farming and fishing businesses that we have, it would not be practical or helpful to legally require Natural England to contact each one directly and personally during the formal public public consultation. Nor can Natural England require any private business to respond to a consultation. We believe the bill strikes the right balance, ensuring public consultation and engagement with the responses from landowners and businesses forming part of the Secretary of State.
Consideration of EDP. And with this explanation, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his various amendments. Turning finally to amendment one, A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which seeks to introduce a requirement for Natural England to pay another person to deliver conservation measures and the related monitoring measures that are required within the EDP. As I have set out previously, we are clear that Natural England will work with third parties and private providers when delivering conservation measures and associated activities under the NRF, such as monitoring.
And as I have set out, we agree with the Noble Lords intention to ensure that private markets and other expert organisations can support the role roll out of the Natural Restoration Fund through delivering conservation measures. However, while we expect Natural England to adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, there may be some instances where direct delivery will be necessary and appropriate. We would not wish for the legislation to remove this option where it would deliver better value for money, better environmental outcomes, or both.
And with this explanation, I hope the noble Lord
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will withdraw his amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister for, for sticking to his brief. We I think there wasn't his brief. We I think there wasn't enough here to satisfy certainly these benches enabling private sector engagement, not requiring it,
18:53
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
not being willing to have it written on, on, on the face of the bill are not reassuring. And direct delivery in certain unspecified circumstances. This does not seem to us like a guarantee of private sector engagement in these EDPs. The noble Lord helpfully mentioned the guidance that would be delivered. We did discuss this at committee stage and noble Baroness the minister who's in her place, I think, indicated that she would provide that draft guidance when it was available and very much look forward to that.
While I'm very happy to withdraw my amendment for now, just to make it very clear, if the noble Lord, Lord Curry, does decide to divide on this, he will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have the support of our benches. Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 145 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage moved formally. Question Stevenage moved formally. Question is that this amendment. Be agreed to as many of that opinion, say 'content' country not content. The 'content' country not content. The contents have it. Amendment 146 Lord Roborough not moved, not moved. Lord Roborough not moved, not moved. And amendment 147 Lord Roborough not moved.
We now come to the group of amendments beginning with of amendments beginning with amendment 148, in clause 58, line 37, amendment 148 Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parminter. My Lords, amendment 148 is an
While I'm very happy to withdraw my amendment for now, just to make it very clear, if the noble Lord, Lord Curry, does decide to divide on this, he will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have the support of our benches. Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 145 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage moved formally. Question Stevenage moved formally. Question is that this amendment. Be agreed to as many of that opinion, say 'content' country not content. The 'content' country not content. The contents have it. Amendment 146 Lord Roborough not moved, not moved. Lord Roborough not moved, not moved. And amendment 147 Lord Roborough not moved.
We now come to the group of amendments beginning with of amendments beginning with amendment 148, in clause 58, line 37, amendment 148 Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Parminter. My Lords, amendment 148 is an
18:54
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, amendment 148 is an attempt to try and make the much vaunted win win for nature and the economy a reality. And I would like, in kicking off to thank my co-sponsors for supporting this amendment and indeed to the Minister and her team for the various meetings where I have tried to persuade her of the merits of this case. I would contend this is a very pragmatic approach. We are taking the government at their word. They have said that the Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP.
That in itself is welcome, but it is just words and there is no clarity on the face of the bill about how the scientific evidence will be assessed, nor how the environmental impacts will be considered. And it is why this amendment, therefore, calls for these important environmental principles to be put in regulations. We're not saying that they have to go on the face of the bill, but they've asked for regulations to give people the confidence that the environmental safeguards that we want to see and which are dwindling wildlife needs, if we're going to meet our own legally binding environmental targets.
Now, the first of those environmental principles, and the most important by some degree, is that of the mitigation hierarchy, that in the first instance, one seeks to avoid damage. If that can't be satisfied, then one reduces, and then only if all other avenues have been explored. One moves to compensation and the government has, despite repeated requests, not given any further clarity on the guidance note which said, and I quote, there is a continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDP.
But as I say, we have not seen anything more clear than that, and we know that a guidance note in itself isn't sufficient. During committee, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said the mitigation hierarchy is expressed through this model, with government amendments underlining the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of the EDP. Again, all well and good, but it's not on the face of this bill, and therefore we are quite clear that the mitigation hierarchy is so important that how it will be applied needs to be spelt out in regulations.
Now, this would not stop the government going ahead with their new approach with these EDPs. It would just require them to be able to prove that all the steps have been gone through during the process of drawing up an EDP to make it absolutely clear that in terms of conservation outcomes, this is the best route to go down. Equally, these regulations would spell out how the precautionary principle will be used in assessing this scientific evidence, because we cannot face the prospect of an EDP which allows damage which could not be repaired by mitigation elsewhere.
It also, and this was mentioned in amendment one three, which we debated earlier, will set out the assessment for the baseline conditions, giving people the confidence that the quality of the information is the best available and is not just on impact modelling. And again, we're taking the government at their word. The minister and committee said that the EDP would mean that it would be unequivocally not happening, that irreplaceable habitats would be included in EDP. Well then put it through these regulations in the, in the in the makeup of the actual EDP.
And let's be clear in there are other regulations, including the biodiversity net gain, which were introduced by the previous government, which do, through regulations, spell out that irreplaceable habitats will not be included within the scope of those provisions. And finally, again, this is taking the government at their word in committee, the Minister Baroness Hayman, talked about how there would be circumstances in which conservation actions must be taken before development can take place. Great, but we need that spelt out and the regulations would be the mean to do that.
Now, as I say, I think we are trying to be helpful to the government, not only because we need those environmental safeguards for the for the government to meet its environmental targets, but these EDPs are a completely new process, and we have got to give businesses the confidence that if they are going to say yes, we will go with these EDPs that there is certainty that they will not be challenged. And as it stands at the moment, there is no clarity about the scientific evidence or the assessment of environmental impacts.
And I have to say, I am deeply, deeply worried that unless this amendment is accepted, there will be far more challenges to the government in its approach, which will not deliver the certainty for developers and will not deliver the houses and the infrastructure that the country needs. And so I offer this amendment to the government to do what I think is a helpful approach to deliver for the environment and to get us building the houses with the certainty that we need as soon as possible.
I beg to move the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Proposed clause 58, line 37. Insert the words as printed on the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. My Lords I tabled amendment 236AI need to apologise to the House. The clause. The amendment is
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, amendment 148 is an attempt to try and make the much vaunted win win for nature and the economy a reality. And I would like, in kicking off to thank my co-sponsors for supporting this amendment and indeed to the Minister and her team for the various meetings where I have tried to persuade her of the merits of this case. I would contend this is a very pragmatic approach. We are taking the government at their word. They have said that the Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP.
That in itself is welcome, but it is just words and there is no clarity on the face of the bill about how the scientific evidence will be assessed, nor how the environmental impacts will be considered. And it is why this amendment, therefore, calls for these important environmental principles to be put in regulations. We're not saying that they have to go on the face of the bill, but they've asked for regulations to give people the confidence that the environmental safeguards that we want to see and which are dwindling wildlife needs, if we're going to meet our own legally binding environmental targets.
Now, the first of those environmental principles, and the most important by some degree, is that of the mitigation hierarchy, that in the first instance, one seeks to avoid damage. If that can't be satisfied, then one reduces, and then only if all other avenues have been explored. One moves to compensation and the government has, despite repeated requests, not given any further clarity on the guidance note which said, and I quote, there is a continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDP.
But as I say, we have not seen anything more clear than that, and we know that a guidance note in itself isn't sufficient. During committee, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said the mitigation hierarchy is expressed through this model, with government amendments underlining the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of the EDP. Again, all well and good, but it's not on the face of this bill, and therefore we are quite clear that the mitigation hierarchy is so important that how it will be applied needs to be spelt out in regulations.
Now, this would not stop the government going ahead with their new approach with these EDPs. It would just require them to be able to prove that all the steps have been gone through during the process of drawing up an EDP to make it absolutely clear that in terms of conservation outcomes, this is the best route to go down. Equally, these regulations would spell out how the precautionary principle will be used in assessing this scientific evidence, because we cannot face the prospect of an EDP which allows damage which could not be repaired by mitigation elsewhere.
It also, and this was mentioned in amendment one three, which we debated earlier, will set out the assessment for the baseline conditions, giving people the confidence that the quality of the information is the best available and is not just on impact modelling. And again, we're taking the government at their word. The minister and committee said that the EDP would mean that it would be unequivocally not happening, that irreplaceable habitats would be included in EDP. Well then put it through these regulations in the, in the in the makeup of the actual EDP.
And let's be clear in there are other regulations, including the biodiversity net gain, which were introduced by the previous government, which do, through regulations, spell out that irreplaceable habitats will not be included within the scope of those provisions. And finally, again, this is taking the government at their word in committee, the Minister Baroness Hayman, talked about how there would be circumstances in which conservation actions must be taken before development can take place. Great, but we need that spelt out and the regulations would be the mean to do that.
Now, as I say, I think we are trying to be helpful to the government, not only because we need those environmental safeguards for the for the government to meet its environmental targets, but these EDPs are a completely new process, and we have got to give businesses the confidence that if they are going to say yes, we will go with these EDPs that there is certainty that they will not be challenged. And as it stands at the moment, there is no clarity about the scientific evidence or the assessment of environmental impacts.
And I have to say, I am deeply, deeply worried that unless this amendment is accepted, there will be far more challenges to the government in its approach, which will not deliver the certainty for developers and will not deliver the houses and the infrastructure that the country needs. And so I offer this amendment to the government to do what I think is a helpful approach to deliver for the environment and to get us building the houses with the certainty that we need as soon as possible.
I beg to move the.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Proposed clause 58, line 37. Insert the words as printed on the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. My Lords I tabled amendment 236AI need to apologise to the House. The clause. The amendment is
19:00
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
House. The clause. The amendment is deficient in its drafting, and as a consequence, I didn't realise that in time before I was able to withdraw. So I am happy for the frontbenchers to completely ignore two, three, six, eight. That said, I support 148 and if the noble Baroness er the noble Lady puts it to a vote, I will support her. OK.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And very briefly, because I spoke already on these matters.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And very briefly, because I spoke already on these matters.
19:00
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
spoke already on these matters. Amendment 130 but all of the concerns that I had about the scientific evidence and the basis and all of that is covered very nicely in this amendment, and I will just say that I would support the noble Lady if she decides to put the matter to a test of the House.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords can I support amendment. 148 and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords can I support amendment. 148 and.
19:01
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank Baroness Parminter for introducing it? So clearly. It is. It is quite a modest little
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is quite a modest little amendment because all it asks is that within six months government will publish.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will publish. address. A number of issues that have. Been of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Been of. Concern to several folks. Around the House, and as well as external audiences.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
external audiences. And it is about a set. Of important issues that can give assurance that the bill will give assurance that the bill will definitely deliver, both for the environment and for development.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The government has. Already given a. Bit of. Clarification on the requirements that are laid out in requirements that are laid out in this amendment, with some very useful but limited amendment useful but limited amendment government amendments that went down after the Commons stages of down after the Commons stages of the bill. And we've had assurances that irreplaceable habitats would be unlikely to be able to meet the be unlikely to be able to meet the overall improvement test. We've had assurances that the environmental assurances that the environmental principles are already captured through drafting and through the various government amendments, and various government amendments, and we've had reference to the Secretary of State meeting, the Environmental Principles policy Environmental Principles policy statement as an alternative to the statement as an alternative to the mitigation hierarchy.
But there are also other downsides in the comments that were made by the comments that were made by the minister at the. At the committee minister at the. At the committee stage, for example, it was said that that on the issue of whether that that on the issue of whether measures need to be put in place in particular circumstances before a particular circumstances before a site is developed, I was really rather concerned to say that that might be the case in instances where habitats or species are rare or fragile.
Well, you kind of think that if habitats are species are that rare or that fragile, that we probably ought to be using the mitigation hierarchy to avoid doing damage to those particularly really important areas. But the Minister was clear that that the government wouldn't require developers to use the mitigation hierarchy to do that very important thing, which is to, first of all, try to avoid damage to the most important sites and to direct development to sites which are rather less importance, which I think is absolutely fundamental.
If this bill is going to deliver both for the environment and for development. The Minister very kindly had a drop in session on EDPs, and during that I did ask whether we might see guidance and draft secondary legislation before we reached the Third Reading. I actually asked if we'd see it before report, but I got a slight rebuttal at that point. But I think it is really important that if there's a need for clarity, and I believe there is a need for clarity on the the sorts of issues that are in this amendment that we see as much by way of what is going to be in the guidance as possible before we actually have to finally press the button on this bill, because at the moment we're buying a bit of a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pig in a poke. I too, rise in support of
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank Baroness Parminter for introducing it? So clearly. It is. It is quite a modest little
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It is quite a modest little amendment because all it asks is that within six months government will publish.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will publish. address. A number of issues that have. Been of.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Been of. Concern to several folks. Around the House, and as well as external audiences.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
external audiences. And it is about a set. Of important issues that can give assurance that the bill will give assurance that the bill will definitely deliver, both for the environment and for development.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The government has. Already given a. Bit of. Clarification on the requirements that are laid out in requirements that are laid out in this amendment, with some very useful but limited amendment useful but limited amendment government amendments that went down after the Commons stages of down after the Commons stages of the bill. And we've had assurances that irreplaceable habitats would be unlikely to be able to meet the be unlikely to be able to meet the overall improvement test. We've had assurances that the environmental assurances that the environmental principles are already captured through drafting and through the various government amendments, and various government amendments, and we've had reference to the Secretary of State meeting, the Environmental Principles policy Environmental Principles policy statement as an alternative to the statement as an alternative to the mitigation hierarchy.
But there are also other downsides in the comments that were made by the comments that were made by the minister at the. At the committee minister at the. At the committee stage, for example, it was said that that on the issue of whether that that on the issue of whether measures need to be put in place in particular circumstances before a particular circumstances before a site is developed, I was really rather concerned to say that that might be the case in instances where habitats or species are rare or fragile.
Well, you kind of think that if habitats are species are that rare or that fragile, that we probably ought to be using the mitigation hierarchy to avoid doing damage to those particularly really important areas. But the Minister was clear that that the government wouldn't require developers to use the mitigation hierarchy to do that very important thing, which is to, first of all, try to avoid damage to the most important sites and to direct development to sites which are rather less importance, which I think is absolutely fundamental.
If this bill is going to deliver both for the environment and for development. The Minister very kindly had a drop in session on EDPs, and during that I did ask whether we might see guidance and draft secondary legislation before we reached the Third Reading. I actually asked if we'd see it before report, but I got a slight rebuttal at that point. But I think it is really important that if there's a need for clarity, and I believe there is a need for clarity on the the sorts of issues that are in this amendment that we see as much by way of what is going to be in the guidance as possible before we actually have to finally press the button on this bill, because at the moment we're buying a bit of a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pig in a poke. I too, rise in support of
19:04
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I too, rise in support of amendment 114. So noble Lady Baroness Young of Old Scone has said it's a modest little amendment, but it's a very sensible amendment with broad support, as we've seen tonight from all sides of the House. And it deals with many of the concerns raised by members from all the benches, including covering a number of amendments that we on these benches have put down. Now I see no need to speak at length. I know there is some suggestion this could be an adequate solution to the ills of part three.
I'm afraid it doesn't go far enough in that regard, but it could be part of the solution. That's why I say to the noble Lady Baroness Parminter if she intends to move this to a vote, the official opposition will support her. If she doesn't wish to vote on it tonight, then I say to the House, I think we will need to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
return to this at Third Reading and discuss it further. My Lords Amendment 148, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness by the noble Lady Baroness Parminter, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations dealing with the various matters within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I'm incredibly grateful to the noble Lady for her continued noble Lady for her continued engagement with part three, and welcome the opportunity to revisit the important matters raised by her the important matters raised by her amendment, as set out in the recent All Peers letter on the NRF, the government is confident that each government is confident that each of the matters raised in this amendment are appropriately addressed in the legislation, and that safeguards in the bill are that safeguards in the bill are sufficiently robust to guard against the misuse of this new approach.
However, we recognise the approach. However, we recognise the particular desire for the government to set out in greater detail how the mitigation hierarchy
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I too, rise in support of amendment 114. So noble Lady Baroness Young of Old Scone has said it's a modest little amendment, but it's a very sensible amendment with broad support, as we've seen tonight from all sides of the House. And it deals with many of the concerns raised by members from all the benches, including covering a number of amendments that we on these benches have put down. Now I see no need to speak at length. I know there is some suggestion this could be an adequate solution to the ills of part three.
I'm afraid it doesn't go far enough in that regard, but it could be part of the solution. That's why I say to the noble Lady Baroness Parminter if she intends to move this to a vote, the official opposition will support her. If she doesn't wish to vote on it tonight, then I say to the House, I think we will need to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
return to this at Third Reading and discuss it further. My Lords Amendment 148, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness by the noble Lady Baroness Parminter, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations dealing with the various matters within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I'm incredibly grateful to the noble Lady for her continued noble Lady for her continued engagement with part three, and welcome the opportunity to revisit the important matters raised by her the important matters raised by her amendment, as set out in the recent All Peers letter on the NRF, the government is confident that each government is confident that each of the matters raised in this amendment are appropriately addressed in the legislation, and that safeguards in the bill are that safeguards in the bill are sufficiently robust to guard against the misuse of this new approach.
However, we recognise the approach. However, we recognise the particular desire for the government to set out in greater detail how the mitigation hierarchy
19:06
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)
detail how the mitigation hierarchy will inform the preparation of EDP. So I am happy to commit to working with the noble Lady Baroness Parminter to determine the best way for the mitigation hierarchy to be considered in the preparation of an EDP, and to be clear that this includes my undertaking to, if necessary, bring forward an amendment at Third Reading. I have already spoken about the mitigation hierarchy at some length during previous debates, so I won't repeat all those points at length, but I would like to again draw attention to the recent All Peers letter, which sets out how the elements of mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the legislation.
The hierarchy starts by saying that development should avoid or reduce impacts wherever possible. Natural England are already able to achieve this by requiring that conditions are imposed on any development that relied on an EDP. These standard conditions will be a form of conservation measure under clause 55. At the other end of the hierarchy, harm should only be compensated for as a last resort. This too is incorporated into part three network. Conservation measures are a form of compensation measures in old money.
The bill makes clear these can only be used where Natural England considers they would make greater environmental improvement than measures delivered at the site that is being impacted. This is inherent. Sorry. It's inherent in this that Natural England must prefer conservation measures, which would previously have been called mitigation measures, over compensation measures. Both of these structures are reinforced by the existing legal obligation under the Environment Act 2021, for the Secretary of State to have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement when making policy, which will also apply when making an EDP.
This will itself encourage compliance with the mitigation hierarchy, though the prevention through the Prevention and Rectification at source principles. But as I've said, I welcome the opportunity to work with the noble Baroness to ensure that there is clarity as to how this framework will be deployed in practice in respect of the other limbs of the noble Ladies amendment. The government's amendments clarify that Natural England and the Secretary of State will need to have regard to the best available scientific evidence. This approach to evidence feeds into the consideration of any baselining that Natural England will have to do in order to appropriately model the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature.
This amendment also speaks to the position in respect of irreplaceable habitats. This draws us back again to the overall improvement test, which simply would not allow an EDP to be made that would lead to irreversible or irreparable harm, as this would fail to secure the overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature required under the test. So where an environmental feature is irreplaceable and EDP could not allow for this feature to be lost, as that would fail to materially outweigh the impact of the development.
I am therefore confident that putting a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations on these matters is unnecessary, but I recognise that the government will want to carefully consider areas where it would be useful to provide further guidance to Natural England as part of the implementation of the NRF, and I therefore hope the noble Lady feels able to withdraw her amendment. I will not speak to amendment 236 A as the noble Earl Baroness Coffey has already withdrawn her amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Knight thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate to show that there is
The hierarchy starts by saying that development should avoid or reduce impacts wherever possible. Natural England are already able to achieve this by requiring that conditions are imposed on any development that relied on an EDP. These standard conditions will be a form of conservation measure under clause 55. At the other end of the hierarchy, harm should only be compensated for as a last resort. This too is incorporated into part three network. Conservation measures are a form of compensation measures in old money.
The bill makes clear these can only be used where Natural England considers they would make greater environmental improvement than measures delivered at the site that is being impacted. This is inherent. Sorry. It's inherent in this that Natural England must prefer conservation measures, which would previously have been called mitigation measures, over compensation measures. Both of these structures are reinforced by the existing legal obligation under the Environment Act 2021, for the Secretary of State to have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement when making policy, which will also apply when making an EDP.
This will itself encourage compliance with the mitigation hierarchy, though the prevention through the Prevention and Rectification at source principles. But as I've said, I welcome the opportunity to work with the noble Baroness to ensure that there is clarity as to how this framework will be deployed in practice in respect of the other limbs of the noble Ladies amendment. The government's amendments clarify that Natural England and the Secretary of State will need to have regard to the best available scientific evidence. This approach to evidence feeds into the consideration of any baselining that Natural England will have to do in order to appropriately model the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature.
This amendment also speaks to the position in respect of irreplaceable habitats. This draws us back again to the overall improvement test, which simply would not allow an EDP to be made that would lead to irreversible or irreparable harm, as this would fail to secure the overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature required under the test. So where an environmental feature is irreplaceable and EDP could not allow for this feature to be lost, as that would fail to materially outweigh the impact of the development.
I am therefore confident that putting a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations on these matters is unnecessary, but I recognise that the government will want to carefully consider areas where it would be useful to provide further guidance to Natural England as part of the implementation of the NRF, and I therefore hope the noble Lady feels able to withdraw her amendment. I will not speak to amendment 236 A as the noble Earl Baroness Coffey has already withdrawn her amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Knight thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate to show that there is
19:09
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
consensus around the importance of these issues and the need for the Bill, as it stands to be amended in order to address what I think Baroness Young regarded as a teeny tiny issue, but actually could have really significant impacts both for the environment and indeed for certainty for the business community. We on these benches always seek to be constructive, and I would like to thank the Minister most heartily for her offer to have further discussions between now and Third Reading to progress matters on this, and I hope very much that we can make progress before Third
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. And with that, I leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Government amendment 149 move. Formally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Formally. The question is that amendment 149 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content, the contents have it Lord Roborough 150. Not moved 151. Not moved 152. Not moved. We now Not moved 152. Not moved. We now come to the next group. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
153 Lord Roborough. My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 153 and speak to my other
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. And with that, I leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Government amendment 149 move. Formally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Formally. The question is that amendment 149 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content, the contents have it Lord Roborough 150. Not moved 151. Not moved 152. Not moved. We now Not moved 152. Not moved. We now come to the next group. Amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
153 Lord Roborough. My Lords, I rise to move my amendment 153 and speak to my other
19:10
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
amendment 153 and speak to my other amendments in this group. The purpose of these amendments is to impose further discipline on Natural England in the exercise of their CPO powers relating to edps, and potentially remove them. Amendments 153 and 160 are seeking to impose enhanced critical down rules on Natural England in regard to any land that is acquired by Natural England for an EDP under CPO or threat of CPO. The intention of the amendments is that should that land not be required for an EDP or the EDP be revoked or expire, then that land should be returned to the previous owner.
In practice, I would expect that the previous owner should pay, but the lower of market value or the net value after expenses and tax that was realised on the initial sale. This is slightly different to critical down rules that require the offer of the land back at market value, should the land be about to be offered for sale, and is therefore a greater protection to the original owner, I hope the noble Baroness the Minister can offer encouragement on these points. Amendment 189A modifies the requirement that Natural England compulsory purchase powers are subject to Secretary of State approval.
The amendment has the force of requiring Natural England to share all documentation and communication relevant to the decision with the Secretary of State, as well as allowing the landowner impacted to make a written submission of their own case. My Lords, I think this amendment will place a greater requirement for diligence on Natural England in the exercise of these powers and also allow private landowners voices who potentially may feel the injustice of the compulsory purchase to state their case. Amendment 190 seeks to protect gardens and allotments from compulsory purchase powers available to Natural England.
It would appear in the Bill that Natural England explicitly does have the power to cpo such property. In meetings and committee the noble Baroness. The Minister has stated that it would be very unlikely it would ever happen. In that case, I ask, why does this power need to be included in the bill? Should the noble Baroness the Minister be minded to adopt these suggestions? Then our amendment 191 that removes Natural England CPO power for EDPs entirely may not be necessary, but if we were not to get satisfaction, we would.
We would be very inclined to test the opinion of the House. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg to move. Amendment proposed in. Clause 59. Page 95, line 33, and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Clause 59. Page 95, line 33, and. Insert the words as printed in the Marshall List. My Lords, very briefly, I just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, very briefly, I just wanted to refer to amendment 190. And often when we're tabling legislation, people say, well, that'll never happen, my Lords, it does in a different way. I remember does in a different way. I remember in the coastal path in parts of Yorkshire where the Natural England had written the path to go through the garden, and understandably, the homeowners were very upset. And homeowners were very upset. And finally, Natural England did change the path at my insistence, because, as I said, the legislation regulations would never, ever be laid.
So there is an element here laid. So there is an element here of why I understand why my noble friend Lord Roborough is putting this particular amendment in, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this particular amendment in, and I hope that the government will give sufficient assurance. My Lords, I rise to speak
In practice, I would expect that the previous owner should pay, but the lower of market value or the net value after expenses and tax that was realised on the initial sale. This is slightly different to critical down rules that require the offer of the land back at market value, should the land be about to be offered for sale, and is therefore a greater protection to the original owner, I hope the noble Baroness the Minister can offer encouragement on these points. Amendment 189A modifies the requirement that Natural England compulsory purchase powers are subject to Secretary of State approval.
The amendment has the force of requiring Natural England to share all documentation and communication relevant to the decision with the Secretary of State, as well as allowing the landowner impacted to make a written submission of their own case. My Lords, I think this amendment will place a greater requirement for diligence on Natural England in the exercise of these powers and also allow private landowners voices who potentially may feel the injustice of the compulsory purchase to state their case. Amendment 190 seeks to protect gardens and allotments from compulsory purchase powers available to Natural England.
It would appear in the Bill that Natural England explicitly does have the power to cpo such property. In meetings and committee the noble Baroness. The Minister has stated that it would be very unlikely it would ever happen. In that case, I ask, why does this power need to be included in the bill? Should the noble Baroness the Minister be minded to adopt these suggestions? Then our amendment 191 that removes Natural England CPO power for EDPs entirely may not be necessary, but if we were not to get satisfaction, we would.
We would be very inclined to test the opinion of the House. I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg to move. Amendment proposed in. Clause 59. Page 95, line 33, and.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Clause 59. Page 95, line 33, and. Insert the words as printed in the Marshall List. My Lords, very briefly, I just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, very briefly, I just wanted to refer to amendment 190. And often when we're tabling legislation, people say, well, that'll never happen, my Lords, it does in a different way. I remember does in a different way. I remember in the coastal path in parts of Yorkshire where the Natural England had written the path to go through the garden, and understandably, the homeowners were very upset. And homeowners were very upset. And finally, Natural England did change the path at my insistence, because, as I said, the legislation regulations would never, ever be laid.
So there is an element here laid. So there is an element here of why I understand why my noble friend Lord Roborough is putting this particular amendment in, and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this particular amendment in, and I hope that the government will give sufficient assurance. My Lords, I rise to speak
19:14
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to the amendment in the name of Lord Roborough, to which I've also added my name. Amendment I've also added my name. Amendment 190 raises an important issue about the use of compulsory purchase orders in relation to environmental delivery plans. It seeks to prevent land that is part of a home or garden from being subject to such an order. This is a reasonable and proportionate safeguard, recognising the sensitivities that come with any proposal to acquire private property, and the importance of ensuring that powers of this kind are used only where truly necessary for the public good.
This question, my Lord, sits within a much wider context about how we support land management and environmental delivery as post-Brexit and post the governments of both colours have tried and often struggled to deliver mechanisms that provide public and private funding for farmers to deliver public goods. The Nfus, the national Farmers Union number one priority has always been that such schemes should be open to all farmers, allowing them to continue vital environmental projects such as part of profitable, resilient businesses.
Moving on to amendment, the intentions behind clause 83 and the desire to ensure that environmental delivery plans can be delivered effectively, there remains a need for greater clarity from the government on how these compulsory purchase orders would operate in practice, and I would particularly welcome assurances on the safeguards that will apply the circumstances in which such powers might be used and whether the government believe there are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
overreach. Lords we begin with the group
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords we begin with the group with amendment 191, which seeks to remove clause 83, which provides remove clause 83, which provides Natural England with powers to compulsory purchase land to carry out functions under part three, my
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to the amendment in the name of Lord Roborough, to which I've also added my name. Amendment I've also added my name. Amendment 190 raises an important issue about the use of compulsory purchase orders in relation to environmental delivery plans. It seeks to prevent land that is part of a home or garden from being subject to such an order. This is a reasonable and proportionate safeguard, recognising the sensitivities that come with any proposal to acquire private property, and the importance of ensuring that powers of this kind are used only where truly necessary for the public good.
This question, my Lord, sits within a much wider context about how we support land management and environmental delivery as post-Brexit and post the governments of both colours have tried and often struggled to deliver mechanisms that provide public and private funding for farmers to deliver public goods. The Nfus, the national Farmers Union number one priority has always been that such schemes should be open to all farmers, allowing them to continue vital environmental projects such as part of profitable, resilient businesses.
Moving on to amendment, the intentions behind clause 83 and the desire to ensure that environmental delivery plans can be delivered effectively, there remains a need for greater clarity from the government on how these compulsory purchase orders would operate in practice, and I would particularly welcome assurances on the safeguards that will apply the circumstances in which such powers might be used and whether the government believe there are
**** Possible New Speaker ****
overreach. Lords we begin with the group
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lords we begin with the group with amendment 191, which seeks to remove clause 83, which provides remove clause 83, which provides Natural England with powers to compulsory purchase land to carry out functions under part three, my
19:16
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)
out functions under part three, my Lords to secure a win win for nature and the economy. Natural England do need to have the necessary powers to bring forward the conservation measures needed to secure environmental protection, while enabling to get while enabling Britain to get building. I know the availability of compulsory purchase powers is a concern for some in this House, which is why the government has taken a suitably cautious approach to the provision of such powers under part three. But we are clear that CPO should be available to Natural England, subject to approval from the Secretary of State where needed, to secure land that is necessary to deliver conservation measures required under an EDP.
This is not, as some would portray it, a power grab for Natural England, but part of the package of measures in this bill that will ensure the necessary conservation measures will be delivered. And while the Secretary of State would only ever approve the use of such powers where truly necessary, we believe these need to be available to ensure that important conservation measures are not prevented from coming forward. On this environmental basis, I hope the noble Lord can see why such powers are necessary and will agree to withdraw his amendment amendments 153 and 160 from the noble Lord Lord Roborough would require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order under two situations.
The first situation would require land to be returned. Where Natural England has used CPO to purchase land, which is then not required, as the Secretary of State has subsequently chosen not to make an EDP. I can assure the noble Lord that this situation will never arise, as Natural England is unable to use these powers before. An EDP has been made by the Secretary of State. The second situation seeks to be returned in the event that an EDP is revoked. My Lords, it is important to recognise that in the unlikely event that an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State is required to take proportionate action to ensure the impact of development that has come forward under the EDP is materially outweighed in line with the overall improvement test.
It is not the case that an EDP is revoked and conservation measures can then be discontinued. Where an EDP is revoked, it will be because the Secretary of State no longer considers that it would meet the overall improvement test. Therefore, it would be environmentally reckless to require the land to be returned in this scenario, given the ongoing need to outweigh the impact of development. To do so would risk removing vital conservation measures and increasing the need for remedial action that would need to be funded by the taxpayer.
Turning to amendment 190, which would restrict Natural England's ability to use CPO powers for land that is part of a private dwelling, I would like to assure noble Lords that the powers being granted to Natural England are not a licence to turn private gardens into nature reserves. As I have set out previously, these powers are there to provide certainty that, where necessary. Natural England can purchase land in this way. However, we recognise that CPO is a significant tool, which is why it is ultimately a decision for the Secretary of State whether the public benefits of the CPO outweigh the interference with individual property rights, and that there is a compelling public interest in making the CPO.
This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight, and noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act. Turning to amendment 252, tabled again by the noble Lord Lord Roborough, which would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. In order to secure the successful delivery of the new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England have sufficient powers and resources to deliver the necessary conservation measures.
We expect Natural England to only consider using compulsory purchase powers once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including authorisation by the Secretary of State, and the landowner will receive compensation in line with the existing approach. The price paid to the landowner if the land is compulsorily acquired, is not linked to the value of any contract proposed by Natural England prior to a CPO being taken forward, but will reflect the fair market value of the land.
This approach to valuation is common across different CPO powers and is not specific to EDPs. When land is acquired by this route, Natural England will use the land to deliver conservation measures required under the EDP. The cost of these measures may vary for a number of reasons, and it is conceivable that Natural England may be able to use the land to deliver a range of conservation measures linked to different EDPs, as well as undermining the ability of EDPs to meet the overall improvement test, requiring land to be returned in this situation would expose taxpayers and developers to increase costs, and would require Natural England to monitor the value of contracts associated with the land for potentially up to 100 years, with land being returned potentially increased value at any point over that period.
I recognise the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the hearts of many noble colleagues, but I trust that noble Lords can recognise the need for these targeted powers and can appreciate the safeguards established through the bill. Finally, amendment 1898 would require the Secretary of State to permit a landowner to make written representations before any decision on whether to approve a compulsory purchase is made. As part of this amendment, Natural England would be required to inform landowners that this option is available and provide all parties with the necessary information.
I can reassure the noble Lord the important protections in his amendment already apply in the bill as drafted. Paragraph one of schedule five specifies that the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 apply to compulsory purchases made by Natural England under clause 83, sections 12 and 13 of that act include provision for the notification of affected landowners, as well as the ability of objectors to submit representations to the confirming authority, in this case, the Secretary of State, either in writing or via a hearing.
With this explanation, I hope the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
This is not, as some would portray it, a power grab for Natural England, but part of the package of measures in this bill that will ensure the necessary conservation measures will be delivered. And while the Secretary of State would only ever approve the use of such powers where truly necessary, we believe these need to be available to ensure that important conservation measures are not prevented from coming forward. On this environmental basis, I hope the noble Lord can see why such powers are necessary and will agree to withdraw his amendment amendments 153 and 160 from the noble Lord Lord Roborough would require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order under two situations.
The first situation would require land to be returned. Where Natural England has used CPO to purchase land, which is then not required, as the Secretary of State has subsequently chosen not to make an EDP. I can assure the noble Lord that this situation will never arise, as Natural England is unable to use these powers before. An EDP has been made by the Secretary of State. The second situation seeks to be returned in the event that an EDP is revoked. My Lords, it is important to recognise that in the unlikely event that an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State is required to take proportionate action to ensure the impact of development that has come forward under the EDP is materially outweighed in line with the overall improvement test.
It is not the case that an EDP is revoked and conservation measures can then be discontinued. Where an EDP is revoked, it will be because the Secretary of State no longer considers that it would meet the overall improvement test. Therefore, it would be environmentally reckless to require the land to be returned in this scenario, given the ongoing need to outweigh the impact of development. To do so would risk removing vital conservation measures and increasing the need for remedial action that would need to be funded by the taxpayer.
Turning to amendment 190, which would restrict Natural England's ability to use CPO powers for land that is part of a private dwelling, I would like to assure noble Lords that the powers being granted to Natural England are not a licence to turn private gardens into nature reserves. As I have set out previously, these powers are there to provide certainty that, where necessary. Natural England can purchase land in this way. However, we recognise that CPO is a significant tool, which is why it is ultimately a decision for the Secretary of State whether the public benefits of the CPO outweigh the interference with individual property rights, and that there is a compelling public interest in making the CPO.
This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight, and noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act. Turning to amendment 252, tabled again by the noble Lord Lord Roborough, which would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. In order to secure the successful delivery of the new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England have sufficient powers and resources to deliver the necessary conservation measures.
We expect Natural England to only consider using compulsory purchase powers once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including authorisation by the Secretary of State, and the landowner will receive compensation in line with the existing approach. The price paid to the landowner if the land is compulsorily acquired, is not linked to the value of any contract proposed by Natural England prior to a CPO being taken forward, but will reflect the fair market value of the land.
This approach to valuation is common across different CPO powers and is not specific to EDPs. When land is acquired by this route, Natural England will use the land to deliver conservation measures required under the EDP. The cost of these measures may vary for a number of reasons, and it is conceivable that Natural England may be able to use the land to deliver a range of conservation measures linked to different EDPs, as well as undermining the ability of EDPs to meet the overall improvement test, requiring land to be returned in this situation would expose taxpayers and developers to increase costs, and would require Natural England to monitor the value of contracts associated with the land for potentially up to 100 years, with land being returned potentially increased value at any point over that period.
I recognise the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the hearts of many noble colleagues, but I trust that noble Lords can recognise the need for these targeted powers and can appreciate the safeguards established through the bill. Finally, amendment 1898 would require the Secretary of State to permit a landowner to make written representations before any decision on whether to approve a compulsory purchase is made. As part of this amendment, Natural England would be required to inform landowners that this option is available and provide all parties with the necessary information.
I can reassure the noble Lord the important protections in his amendment already apply in the bill as drafted. Paragraph one of schedule five specifies that the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 apply to compulsory purchases made by Natural England under clause 83, sections 12 and 13 of that act include provision for the notification of affected landowners, as well as the ability of objectors to submit representations to the confirming authority, in this case, the Secretary of State, either in writing or via a hearing.
With this explanation, I hope the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
19:22
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her reply to my amendments. I didn't detect much movement. I did think it was very helpful to have the answer on 189A, which I think is a significant protection to a landowner who has been CPO. I didn't detect that there was much of an answer on the critical down rules as such, and whether it was possible to improve on those as they relate to a CPO for an EDP and, you know, were the noble Baroness the minister able to reflect on that over the next few groups and offer anything before we get to amendment 191, I am still minded to test the opinion of the House on that, but any clarification could well be helpful.
In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. is by leave withdrawn. to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
158 not moved En bloc. This seems to be convenient. Time to break for dinner. Break. Time to break for dinner. Break. Dinner break business. And I would think now we would not return to think now we would not return to the bill before 8:03. I therefore adjourned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
adjourned. Question is that further consideration on report be now adjourned. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. We will pause for a moment to
In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. is by leave withdrawn. to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
158 not moved En bloc. This seems to be convenient. Time to break for dinner. Break. Time to break for dinner. Break. Dinner break business. And I would think now we would not return to think now we would not return to the bill before 8:03. I therefore adjourned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
adjourned. Question is that further consideration on report be now adjourned. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. We will pause for a moment to
19:24
Statement: Strengthening Prisoner Release Checks
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On On a On a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On a. Statement made in the House of Commons on Monday, the 27th of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
October, on strengthening prisoner release checks. My Lords, I should begin.
Statement: Strengthening Prisoner Release Checks
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On On a On a.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
On a. Statement made in the House of Commons on Monday, the 27th of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
October, on strengthening prisoner release checks. My Lords, I should begin.
19:25
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I should begin. By thanking the Metropolitan Police, Essex Police and the British Transport Police for their British Transport Police for their prompt work in returning Mr. Shibata to custody. I am also grateful to the Home Office for eventually finalising Mr. Kabatas departure and deportation last night. But most importantly, my thoughts and deepest sympathies remain with the 14 year old victim and her family and I cannot imagine the anxiety and distress that engulfed their home last weekend.
There were three points at which I think arise out of this sorry tale. First, it is a scathing indictment of this government's competence, or I should say, incompetence, that it took a national outcry before they finally managed to deport Mr. Kabuto, perhaps the only small boat migrant who actually wanted to be deported. He returned to Chelmsford prison five times, asking to be taken home, and was turned away on every occasion. Only after his mistaken release and the public scrutiny that followed, did the government at last do what should have been done months ago.
And it has now emerged that the Home Office authorised a discretionary payment of £500 to Mr. Kabuto as part of his removal, reportedly to discourage him from claiming asylum. The briefing has been put out that this was nothing to do with ministers. Apparently officials used their own cash cards. We are told to take the money out. This is remarkable. I remember that under Prime Minister Blair, the proposal then was that criminals were going to be made to pay their debts to society before they might be deported, and it was going to be the public officials who would be marching the criminals to the ATMs under Prime Minister Starmer.
We have got the farce that offenders liable for deportation are forcing public officials to come with them to the cashpoint, to take out cash to give them before, in an attempt to prevent their causing more problems prior to their deportation. I mean, this is a reversal of justice. It's hard to find words adequate to reflect this breakdown in basic operational competence. And there is a serious point here. I do not know whether the Attorney General, who I'm afraid is not in his place, has sanctioned this payment of public funds to Mr.
Kabuto in the hope that it would encourage him not to mount a legal challenge. If he hasn't, I would be interested to to know whether the Attorney General supports the use of public funds to encourage people not to make legal points in court. That seems to me to be a matter not only of a misuse of public finances, but also a real problem for the rule of law. And it is rather odd. We have the farce of a government paying foreign offenders to leave.
We have our territory. We have the same government paying foreign states to take our territory at the same time as the government in a few weeks is going to be taxing everybody in order to pay for all of these payments. And this failure appears in the context of the government's general failings to deport asylum seekers. The flaws of the 1 in 1 out scheme have been exposed. A migrant sent to France returned to our shores within weeks on another small boat.
The flagship plan to smash the gangs has been undone as soon as it started. It's little wonder that over 50,000 people have arrived on small boats this year, the highest number ever recorded, and only time will tell whether Mr. Kabata will soon be among them. And if Mr. Kabata comes back, is the government going to commit to sending him back again to Ethiopia, or will he be another litigant who relies on the ever expanding jurisprudence of the OECD, the public and the Parliament deserve an honest answer to those questions.
The second point is the ineffectual relief scheme. The Kabato incident is not merely one man wrongly released, but is symptomatic of profound problems in the prison system. The government released at least 262 prisoners early, more than double the year before, and are yet to clarify how many remain unaccounted for. Are we going to get that figure this evening? Because we haven't got it until now. Only this summer, HMP Pentonville released ten prisoners early an hour, while 130 inmates.
That's around 20% of those eligible for release were held beyond their sentence. Because staff failed to calculate release dates correctly. And it's simply not good enough to put this down and again and again to human error, because it's only now that we have a public outcry that the CEO of Prison and Probation Service is going to conduct a review into release checks. Why was this not done after the Pentonville fiasco earlier this year, the chief inspector of prisons served an urgent notification on Pentonville for its inability to calculate release dates, but no action was taken.
There has been no inquiry into the 262 mistaken releases and as a result, another sex offender was allowed to roam our streets. And this belated review comes far too late. No amount of promise of future action should disguise the scale of the failure of this government, or absolve themselves of responsibility for the chaos that they have created. The third point is in the context of the sentencing bill, which this government is now going to be presenting before this House, assuming it gets through the other House, because it's telling that the government and the Lord Chancellor in particular, have repeatedly expressed remorse at Mr.
Kabatas release, saying that every effort was taken to locate him. Mr. Lammy, we're told, was livid. That was the word he used, livid when he was told of Mr. Kabatas release from custody and the Home Secretary referred to him as, and I quote, a vile child sex offender and she's right about that. But this Mr. Lammy, who was livid about Mr. Kabata being released, is the same Mr. Lammy under whose upcoming sentencing bill, Mr. Cabato, would probably never have gone to prison in the first instance because he was given a sentence of only 12 months.
And under the new sentencing bill, if you get a sentence of only up to 12 months, you are presumed presumed to serve a suspended sentence, which was expose him to the public rather than to a prison cell. So I do ask the noble Lord, the minister, what is his Secretary of State's position with regard to people like? Mr. Cabato? Is the Secretary of State livid when they're not held in custody, or does he support his own sentencing bill under which people like Mr.
Cabato would never have gone into custody in the first place? He can't have it both ways. The truth is that the sentencing bill is not the silver bullet that will fix this government's mismanagement of prisons. The noble Lord, the minister will no doubt say, as he often does, well, we inherited a crisis. But I do ask, when will they take responsibility for their own record, since they since they came to power, since they came to power, the number of prisoners incorrectly released has doubled.
Doubled. How can that how can that be anybody's failures? But the responsibility of this government, just over a year into office, they've slashed prison education budgets by an average of 20%, sometimes as much as 60%. That undermines rehabilitation, fuels re-offending, and places further strain on a broken system. And I know the noble Lord the minister, who I respect personally, immensely, knows this, and he's fighting. I'm sure, the good fight within government. But on the facts as we see them, I'm afraid that he is losing that fight and losing it badly.
The early release of Mr. Cabato should never have happened. The government had been given warnings and they were ignored. We deserve a government that can keep order in our prisons. We deserve a government that will maintain integrity in our justice system. And until the government accepts responsibility and takes decisive action, we cannot have confidence that those who commit crimes will either be properly punished or indeed, that the rule of law will be upheld.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I. Echo the thanks of. The noble. Lord. Lord Wolfson, to the authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Wolfson, to the authorities. deported. Mr. Cabato, and indeed the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr. Cabato, and indeed the sympathy he expressed to the young victim of Mr. Abbott's offending. victim of Mr. Abbott's offending. My Lords. The Secretary of State statement was made on Monday. That's the 27th of October,
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I should begin. By thanking the Metropolitan Police, Essex Police and the British Transport Police for their British Transport Police for their prompt work in returning Mr. Shibata to custody. I am also grateful to the Home Office for eventually finalising Mr. Kabatas departure and deportation last night. But most importantly, my thoughts and deepest sympathies remain with the 14 year old victim and her family and I cannot imagine the anxiety and distress that engulfed their home last weekend.
There were three points at which I think arise out of this sorry tale. First, it is a scathing indictment of this government's competence, or I should say, incompetence, that it took a national outcry before they finally managed to deport Mr. Kabuto, perhaps the only small boat migrant who actually wanted to be deported. He returned to Chelmsford prison five times, asking to be taken home, and was turned away on every occasion. Only after his mistaken release and the public scrutiny that followed, did the government at last do what should have been done months ago.
And it has now emerged that the Home Office authorised a discretionary payment of £500 to Mr. Kabuto as part of his removal, reportedly to discourage him from claiming asylum. The briefing has been put out that this was nothing to do with ministers. Apparently officials used their own cash cards. We are told to take the money out. This is remarkable. I remember that under Prime Minister Blair, the proposal then was that criminals were going to be made to pay their debts to society before they might be deported, and it was going to be the public officials who would be marching the criminals to the ATMs under Prime Minister Starmer.
We have got the farce that offenders liable for deportation are forcing public officials to come with them to the cashpoint, to take out cash to give them before, in an attempt to prevent their causing more problems prior to their deportation. I mean, this is a reversal of justice. It's hard to find words adequate to reflect this breakdown in basic operational competence. And there is a serious point here. I do not know whether the Attorney General, who I'm afraid is not in his place, has sanctioned this payment of public funds to Mr.
Kabuto in the hope that it would encourage him not to mount a legal challenge. If he hasn't, I would be interested to to know whether the Attorney General supports the use of public funds to encourage people not to make legal points in court. That seems to me to be a matter not only of a misuse of public finances, but also a real problem for the rule of law. And it is rather odd. We have the farce of a government paying foreign offenders to leave.
We have our territory. We have the same government paying foreign states to take our territory at the same time as the government in a few weeks is going to be taxing everybody in order to pay for all of these payments. And this failure appears in the context of the government's general failings to deport asylum seekers. The flaws of the 1 in 1 out scheme have been exposed. A migrant sent to France returned to our shores within weeks on another small boat.
The flagship plan to smash the gangs has been undone as soon as it started. It's little wonder that over 50,000 people have arrived on small boats this year, the highest number ever recorded, and only time will tell whether Mr. Kabata will soon be among them. And if Mr. Kabata comes back, is the government going to commit to sending him back again to Ethiopia, or will he be another litigant who relies on the ever expanding jurisprudence of the OECD, the public and the Parliament deserve an honest answer to those questions.
The second point is the ineffectual relief scheme. The Kabato incident is not merely one man wrongly released, but is symptomatic of profound problems in the prison system. The government released at least 262 prisoners early, more than double the year before, and are yet to clarify how many remain unaccounted for. Are we going to get that figure this evening? Because we haven't got it until now. Only this summer, HMP Pentonville released ten prisoners early an hour, while 130 inmates.
That's around 20% of those eligible for release were held beyond their sentence. Because staff failed to calculate release dates correctly. And it's simply not good enough to put this down and again and again to human error, because it's only now that we have a public outcry that the CEO of Prison and Probation Service is going to conduct a review into release checks. Why was this not done after the Pentonville fiasco earlier this year, the chief inspector of prisons served an urgent notification on Pentonville for its inability to calculate release dates, but no action was taken.
There has been no inquiry into the 262 mistaken releases and as a result, another sex offender was allowed to roam our streets. And this belated review comes far too late. No amount of promise of future action should disguise the scale of the failure of this government, or absolve themselves of responsibility for the chaos that they have created. The third point is in the context of the sentencing bill, which this government is now going to be presenting before this House, assuming it gets through the other House, because it's telling that the government and the Lord Chancellor in particular, have repeatedly expressed remorse at Mr.
Kabatas release, saying that every effort was taken to locate him. Mr. Lammy, we're told, was livid. That was the word he used, livid when he was told of Mr. Kabatas release from custody and the Home Secretary referred to him as, and I quote, a vile child sex offender and she's right about that. But this Mr. Lammy, who was livid about Mr. Kabata being released, is the same Mr. Lammy under whose upcoming sentencing bill, Mr. Cabato, would probably never have gone to prison in the first instance because he was given a sentence of only 12 months.
And under the new sentencing bill, if you get a sentence of only up to 12 months, you are presumed presumed to serve a suspended sentence, which was expose him to the public rather than to a prison cell. So I do ask the noble Lord, the minister, what is his Secretary of State's position with regard to people like? Mr. Cabato? Is the Secretary of State livid when they're not held in custody, or does he support his own sentencing bill under which people like Mr.
Cabato would never have gone into custody in the first place? He can't have it both ways. The truth is that the sentencing bill is not the silver bullet that will fix this government's mismanagement of prisons. The noble Lord, the minister will no doubt say, as he often does, well, we inherited a crisis. But I do ask, when will they take responsibility for their own record, since they since they came to power, since they came to power, the number of prisoners incorrectly released has doubled.
Doubled. How can that how can that be anybody's failures? But the responsibility of this government, just over a year into office, they've slashed prison education budgets by an average of 20%, sometimes as much as 60%. That undermines rehabilitation, fuels re-offending, and places further strain on a broken system. And I know the noble Lord the minister, who I respect personally, immensely, knows this, and he's fighting. I'm sure, the good fight within government. But on the facts as we see them, I'm afraid that he is losing that fight and losing it badly.
The early release of Mr. Cabato should never have happened. The government had been given warnings and they were ignored. We deserve a government that can keep order in our prisons. We deserve a government that will maintain integrity in our justice system. And until the government accepts responsibility and takes decisive action, we cannot have confidence that those who commit crimes will either be properly punished or indeed, that the rule of law will be upheld.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I. Echo the thanks of. The noble. Lord. Lord Wolfson, to the authorities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Wolfson, to the authorities. deported. Mr. Cabato, and indeed the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Mr. Cabato, and indeed the sympathy he expressed to the young victim of Mr. Abbott's offending. victim of Mr. Abbott's offending. My Lords. The Secretary of State statement was made on Monday. That's the 27th of October,
19:35
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
That's the 27th of October, following Mr. Abbott's mistaken release into the community on Friday the 24th. And I fully understand the Secretary of State's inability on Monday to give full details of what had happened. But with two further days, I'd ask how much more the noble Lord can say about how this mistaken release actually happened. The Secretary of State, as we've heard, apparently said he was livid. He described the release as a blunder and that we accept entirely that he was right in both those things.
But saying so solves nothing. There is now, at least, to be an inquiry into how Mr. Cabato came to be released and what the failures were to be chaired by Dame Lynne Owens, the former deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and director general of the National Crime Agency. But setting up an inquiry doesn't solve the problem. Nor does it answer the central questions which Parliament and the public are entitled to have fully answered. Now, first, what is the system and what are the safeguards currently in place for ensuring that only prisoners intended for release are, in fact released? And secondly, what is the system and what are the safeguards for ensuring that prisoners destined for deportation are, in fact deported and not released into the community? My Lords as Lord Wilson said, the issue of mistaken releases is serious.
It is in fact a serious as it is absurd. The number of mistaken releases has risen sharply between April 2024, and I'd remind the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that that was before the general election in March 2025. The number of mistaken releases rose to 262 in a year, up from 115 the previous year, an increase of well over double. But this my Lords is a problem that simply should not exist at all. We are now told that a new checklist has been introduced for prison staff to follow before a prisoner is released.
How can there not have been a satisfactory checklist system in place before this occurred? My Lord? Certainly morale and the ability of the Prison Service to cope have fallen to an abysmal level. But that is not entirely the fault of this government. It's happened over years under the previous Conservative government. But this case and these figures demonstrate the scale of the challenges that the service and the government face. If we are even to approach getting these things right and the resources and the willpower required to repair our collapsed penal system, which are far greater than ever we envisaged.
And my Lords, there is now this further issue of the £500. We now hear from the BBC that Mr. Kibati was paid £500, apparently for not making trouble for not disrupting his deportation to Ethiopia after he had threatened to do so. We're told that the payment was made by the removal team as an alternative to a slower and more expensive process, which would have meant the cancellation of his flight and the arrangement of a new one. And that's according to a spokesperson for the Prime Minister.
And apparently a parallel was drawn by number ten with the so-called facilitated returns scheme, whereby a foreign national who agrees to leave the UK voluntarily can be paid £1,500 so to do. But that is an entirely false parallel that was drawn. Apparently Mr. Cabatu had attempted to apply for the facilitated return scheme, but was not permitted to do so, and that was no doubt because he was liable to be immediately deported anyway, quite apart from the embarrassment that all this had caused.
But I would ask the noble Lord to confirm that, and then to answer questions about that payment. How did that payment to Mr. Cabatu come to be made, since it wasn't under the facilitated return scheme? Is there some kind of what can only be described as a slush fund, which can be used to buy people's compliance with their deportation, and, if so, on, whose authority is it extended? One can understand that it might cost a great deal more than £500 as a flight.
If a flight has to be cancelled, and a potential deportee cannot therefore be deported. But surely Downing Street can see that paying one deportee off for not making trouble is going to lead to a whole number of others taking the same course, and who makes the decisions? In any particular case, what controls are there over such payments? How is this not rewarding? Troublemaking my Lords? Who decides in any given case, the amount that is to be paid out, if not £1,500? Is it discretionary? Can it be more? Must it be less? My Lords, these are serious questions about what I'm afraid.
Has the smell of being an arbitrary, uncontrolled, unprofessional and unacceptable system. My Lords, can the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord please explain? I thank the noble Lord Wolfson, a. Noble Lord Marks, for their contributions.
But saying so solves nothing. There is now, at least, to be an inquiry into how Mr. Cabato came to be released and what the failures were to be chaired by Dame Lynne Owens, the former deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and director general of the National Crime Agency. But setting up an inquiry doesn't solve the problem. Nor does it answer the central questions which Parliament and the public are entitled to have fully answered. Now, first, what is the system and what are the safeguards currently in place for ensuring that only prisoners intended for release are, in fact released? And secondly, what is the system and what are the safeguards for ensuring that prisoners destined for deportation are, in fact deported and not released into the community? My Lords as Lord Wilson said, the issue of mistaken releases is serious.
It is in fact a serious as it is absurd. The number of mistaken releases has risen sharply between April 2024, and I'd remind the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that that was before the general election in March 2025. The number of mistaken releases rose to 262 in a year, up from 115 the previous year, an increase of well over double. But this my Lords is a problem that simply should not exist at all. We are now told that a new checklist has been introduced for prison staff to follow before a prisoner is released.
How can there not have been a satisfactory checklist system in place before this occurred? My Lord? Certainly morale and the ability of the Prison Service to cope have fallen to an abysmal level. But that is not entirely the fault of this government. It's happened over years under the previous Conservative government. But this case and these figures demonstrate the scale of the challenges that the service and the government face. If we are even to approach getting these things right and the resources and the willpower required to repair our collapsed penal system, which are far greater than ever we envisaged.
And my Lords, there is now this further issue of the £500. We now hear from the BBC that Mr. Kibati was paid £500, apparently for not making trouble for not disrupting his deportation to Ethiopia after he had threatened to do so. We're told that the payment was made by the removal team as an alternative to a slower and more expensive process, which would have meant the cancellation of his flight and the arrangement of a new one. And that's according to a spokesperson for the Prime Minister.
And apparently a parallel was drawn by number ten with the so-called facilitated returns scheme, whereby a foreign national who agrees to leave the UK voluntarily can be paid £1,500 so to do. But that is an entirely false parallel that was drawn. Apparently Mr. Cabatu had attempted to apply for the facilitated return scheme, but was not permitted to do so, and that was no doubt because he was liable to be immediately deported anyway, quite apart from the embarrassment that all this had caused.
But I would ask the noble Lord to confirm that, and then to answer questions about that payment. How did that payment to Mr. Cabatu come to be made, since it wasn't under the facilitated return scheme? Is there some kind of what can only be described as a slush fund, which can be used to buy people's compliance with their deportation, and, if so, on, whose authority is it extended? One can understand that it might cost a great deal more than £500 as a flight.
If a flight has to be cancelled, and a potential deportee cannot therefore be deported. But surely Downing Street can see that paying one deportee off for not making trouble is going to lead to a whole number of others taking the same course, and who makes the decisions? In any particular case, what controls are there over such payments? How is this not rewarding? Troublemaking my Lords? Who decides in any given case, the amount that is to be paid out, if not £1,500? Is it discretionary? Can it be more? Must it be less? My Lords, these are serious questions about what I'm afraid.
Has the smell of being an arbitrary, uncontrolled, unprofessional and unacceptable system. My Lords, can the noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord please explain? I thank the noble Lord Wolfson, a. Noble Lord Marks, for their contributions.
19:41
Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contributions. To this incredibly, these incredibly important issues. I will, of course, respond to as many of the points raised as possible. And the points raised as possible. And I'd also like to begin by thanking the Metropolitan Essex and British Transport Police for their swift response in apprehending Mr. Cabatu. My particular thanks go to Essex Police for the support they've offered to the victims, all of whom were contacted following the release in error. I can tell noble Lords that Mr.
Kibaki has now been deported and has arrived back in Ethiopia this morning. Nevertheless, his victims are rightly outraged and the government regrets the hurt and anguish this incident will have caused them. They deserve better and the public deserves better. And as the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary said in the other place on Monday, Ministers expect better from a public service which plays a huge role in the first duty of any government to keep the public safe. We are clear that any release in error is one too many.
Immediate changes have been made to the release process so that there is more accountability, including a new checklist for duty governors to complete the night before releases happen. Noble Lords, who have concerns about the arrangements currently in place, should be in no doubt that these are the strongest release checks the Prison Service has ever had. This incident will throw releases in error into stark relief, but the reality is that they've been rising year on year since 2021. In 2023, there were around nine per month.
But by the period January to June 2024, that had increased to 17 per month. This is clearly too high and we've got work to do. While I appreciate noble Lords will be concerned that more focus is needed to address the issues, we have now commenced an independent investigation. It will be led by Dame Lynne Owens, with her years of experience as a former Deputy Commissioner of the met and director general of the National Crime Agency. Dame Lynne will establish the facts in this case, and the government has been clear that there must be accountability for what happened.
What I will say is that the prison staff work incredibly hard, often in difficult circumstances. So we will, of course, take account of the training and technology available to support the release process when the incident took place. What is important now is that due process is allowed to happen. In addition, Dame Lynne will make recommendations to support the Prison Service to avoid such errors in the future, and I look forward to receiving her report so that the government can agree changes as soon as possible with HMPPS senior leadership.
My Lords, when it comes to foreign national offenders, this government stands on its record. In the year to July, we sent 5179 fellows back to their countries of origin, which represents a 14% increase on the previous 12 month period. This is no small feat. In July, I visited HMP Huntercombe to see for myself the operational challenges around foreign national offenders, the deportation delays and the ongoing issue of space inside prisons. As I have set out to noble Lords many times, our prisons continue to operate close to their maximum capacity.
This puts us at risk of the total collapse of the criminal justice system, in which victims and the public would pay the price. With the prison system in its current state, it is sadly no surprise that releases an error like Mr. Kabatas can happen. This government has been clear about the changes needed to create a better, more sustainable prison system. The sentencing bill that is currently making its way through the other place, and which will soon come to your Lordships House, will ensure we never run out of prison places again.
It will incentivise offenders to behave in prison, to avoid longer spells in custody, and puts a greater emphasis on robust community sentencing, which addresses the causes of crime. The bill will deliver punishment that works to cut crime and keep the public safe. To those noble lords who are concerned that Mr. Kibaki would never have gone to prison under the bill and would therefore remain in the community, I would gently point out that they may wish to examine the legislation and clause 42, which will extend the automatic deportation rules to include any phno who gets a suspended sentence of at least 12 months, and on a few points that were raised by both noble Lords the £500 that was paid was an operational decision to get on a plane without any delays.
It's far cheaper than booking more flights, and it's far cheaper than him being in a cell for another year, which is £54,000. I also think it was a sensible decision by civil servants, and it was in a golfing analogy. If someone wants to give you a putt, you take it. He needed to get on the plane and get back to Ethiopia. So far as Mr. Gabato returning to the prison five times, this is will be part of Daimler investigation into what exactly happened.
And also noble Earl Lord Wolfson reference to Pentonville is quite right. As part of the urgent notification, I just immediately after that I visited the prison and there were ten releases that were incorrect. All of them. They remained in prison for too long. And there are problems at that prison which we're addressing. And I have an action plan that I'm working with colleagues on. But what is clear, this is symptomatic of a prison system that's under huge amount of pressure. Just like to reiterate that prison education budgets are actually up by 3%.
But the amount of education we can deliver has gone down because of the increase in costs of delivering that service. And as the noble Lord Wolfson will know, I cannot pre-empt the annual publication of these statistics. We're a lot more transparent than the previous government, especially on the early release scheme, where 10,000 offenders were released in Cloak and dagger, and the STS 40 scheme that we took, took on was very much. We told everybody what was going on. And and just to reiterate to the noble Lord Marks, with the increase in extra checks that I insisted on, will make sure that the this the release processes are far more robust.
So far from being soft on crime, this government is taking the robust decisions needed to protect the justice system. Prisons are and have been in crisis for far too long, but we're putting in the work to build stability. Victims are, and always will be, our paramount concern when it comes to an issue like this. And this government stands on its record of deporting increasing numbers of foreign national offenders, as the public expects. Again, I thank the two noble Lords for their contributions today, and I will continue to engage with them and colleagues more broadly on this important issue as the government addresses releases an error so that we can continue to uphold our first duty to keep the public safe from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
harm. My Lords, I note that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I note that the statement directly addresses strengthening prison release checks, strengthening prison release checks, but I would put to the noble Lord, the Minister, that it's important to look at this in the broader context within the Home Office. I context within the Home Office. I note that on radio four this morning, there was a list of the schemes and programmes within the schemes and programmes within the Home Office going wrong. The National Police computer system replacement is six years late.
The
Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contributions. To this incredibly, these incredibly important issues. I will, of course, respond to as many of the points raised as possible. And the points raised as possible. And I'd also like to begin by thanking the Metropolitan Essex and British Transport Police for their swift response in apprehending Mr. Cabatu. My particular thanks go to Essex Police for the support they've offered to the victims, all of whom were contacted following the release in error. I can tell noble Lords that Mr.
Kibaki has now been deported and has arrived back in Ethiopia this morning. Nevertheless, his victims are rightly outraged and the government regrets the hurt and anguish this incident will have caused them. They deserve better and the public deserves better. And as the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary said in the other place on Monday, Ministers expect better from a public service which plays a huge role in the first duty of any government to keep the public safe. We are clear that any release in error is one too many.
Immediate changes have been made to the release process so that there is more accountability, including a new checklist for duty governors to complete the night before releases happen. Noble Lords, who have concerns about the arrangements currently in place, should be in no doubt that these are the strongest release checks the Prison Service has ever had. This incident will throw releases in error into stark relief, but the reality is that they've been rising year on year since 2021. In 2023, there were around nine per month.
But by the period January to June 2024, that had increased to 17 per month. This is clearly too high and we've got work to do. While I appreciate noble Lords will be concerned that more focus is needed to address the issues, we have now commenced an independent investigation. It will be led by Dame Lynne Owens, with her years of experience as a former Deputy Commissioner of the met and director general of the National Crime Agency. Dame Lynne will establish the facts in this case, and the government has been clear that there must be accountability for what happened.
What I will say is that the prison staff work incredibly hard, often in difficult circumstances. So we will, of course, take account of the training and technology available to support the release process when the incident took place. What is important now is that due process is allowed to happen. In addition, Dame Lynne will make recommendations to support the Prison Service to avoid such errors in the future, and I look forward to receiving her report so that the government can agree changes as soon as possible with HMPPS senior leadership.
My Lords, when it comes to foreign national offenders, this government stands on its record. In the year to July, we sent 5179 fellows back to their countries of origin, which represents a 14% increase on the previous 12 month period. This is no small feat. In July, I visited HMP Huntercombe to see for myself the operational challenges around foreign national offenders, the deportation delays and the ongoing issue of space inside prisons. As I have set out to noble Lords many times, our prisons continue to operate close to their maximum capacity.
This puts us at risk of the total collapse of the criminal justice system, in which victims and the public would pay the price. With the prison system in its current state, it is sadly no surprise that releases an error like Mr. Kabatas can happen. This government has been clear about the changes needed to create a better, more sustainable prison system. The sentencing bill that is currently making its way through the other place, and which will soon come to your Lordships House, will ensure we never run out of prison places again.
It will incentivise offenders to behave in prison, to avoid longer spells in custody, and puts a greater emphasis on robust community sentencing, which addresses the causes of crime. The bill will deliver punishment that works to cut crime and keep the public safe. To those noble lords who are concerned that Mr. Kibaki would never have gone to prison under the bill and would therefore remain in the community, I would gently point out that they may wish to examine the legislation and clause 42, which will extend the automatic deportation rules to include any phno who gets a suspended sentence of at least 12 months, and on a few points that were raised by both noble Lords the £500 that was paid was an operational decision to get on a plane without any delays.
It's far cheaper than booking more flights, and it's far cheaper than him being in a cell for another year, which is £54,000. I also think it was a sensible decision by civil servants, and it was in a golfing analogy. If someone wants to give you a putt, you take it. He needed to get on the plane and get back to Ethiopia. So far as Mr. Gabato returning to the prison five times, this is will be part of Daimler investigation into what exactly happened.
And also noble Earl Lord Wolfson reference to Pentonville is quite right. As part of the urgent notification, I just immediately after that I visited the prison and there were ten releases that were incorrect. All of them. They remained in prison for too long. And there are problems at that prison which we're addressing. And I have an action plan that I'm working with colleagues on. But what is clear, this is symptomatic of a prison system that's under huge amount of pressure. Just like to reiterate that prison education budgets are actually up by 3%.
But the amount of education we can deliver has gone down because of the increase in costs of delivering that service. And as the noble Lord Wolfson will know, I cannot pre-empt the annual publication of these statistics. We're a lot more transparent than the previous government, especially on the early release scheme, where 10,000 offenders were released in Cloak and dagger, and the STS 40 scheme that we took, took on was very much. We told everybody what was going on. And and just to reiterate to the noble Lord Marks, with the increase in extra checks that I insisted on, will make sure that the this the release processes are far more robust.
So far from being soft on crime, this government is taking the robust decisions needed to protect the justice system. Prisons are and have been in crisis for far too long, but we're putting in the work to build stability. Victims are, and always will be, our paramount concern when it comes to an issue like this. And this government stands on its record of deporting increasing numbers of foreign national offenders, as the public expects. Again, I thank the two noble Lords for their contributions today, and I will continue to engage with them and colleagues more broadly on this important issue as the government addresses releases an error so that we can continue to uphold our first duty to keep the public safe from
**** Possible New Speaker ****
harm. My Lords, I note that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I note that the statement directly addresses strengthening prison release checks, strengthening prison release checks, but I would put to the noble Lord, the Minister, that it's important to look at this in the broader context within the Home Office. I context within the Home Office. I note that on radio four this morning, there was a list of the schemes and programmes within the schemes and programmes within the Home Office going wrong. The National Police computer system replacement is six years late.
The
19:48
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
replacement is six years late. The biometrics project is seven years late. The emergency services communication system is a decade late and £3 billion over budget. Now as the Conservative frontbench didn't, I will fully acknowledge that this is what the situation that the current government inherited. It can't be held responsible for what it's what arrived on its desk. But I was reading that and reading in this statement about the extra checks and the new systems that have been put to prison, governors put into prisons to try and stop these releases going wrong.
Now, we know that many of those computer systems, the reasons why there's been such problem within the Home Office is that the rules have kept being changed. The problems with the quality of the data going into the system hasn't been properly acknowledged. So can the noble Lord the Minister assure me that the government is taking full account of the weakness of the Home Office and its systems overall, the level of chaos that they inherited? And isn't it time to actually think about a big restructure, a potential splitting up of the Home Office that just very clearly is not working?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Decisions such as your last point is far above my pay grade,
Now, we know that many of those computer systems, the reasons why there's been such problem within the Home Office is that the rules have kept being changed. The problems with the quality of the data going into the system hasn't been properly acknowledged. So can the noble Lord the Minister assure me that the government is taking full account of the weakness of the Home Office and its systems overall, the level of chaos that they inherited? And isn't it time to actually think about a big restructure, a potential splitting up of the Home Office that just very clearly is not working?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Decisions such as your last point is far above my pay grade,
19:49
Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
point is far above my pay grade, but I'd just like to mention two points. One on releasing an error. You know, any releasing error is far too many, and there's clearly a problem here that needs to be addressed. And my style is very much let's deal with it and let's work out what the problems are. And I think the investigation that Dame Lynne Owens will do will be very helpful as part of that process. And as part of the question around data and making sure that we are effective and accurate in the work that we do.
One of the things that I am spending a lot of time focusing on is how we can embrace technology to ensure that specifically, the prison and probation service, which I know is in the justice area, not the Home Office area, has an ability to get things more accurately done, but also that enables the frontline staff to focus on what they do best, which is to rehabilitate people, not to fill out forms. And that is why Justice Transcribe, which may sound like a very straightforward addition, which is basically using AI to dictate what happened in a meeting with an offender, rather than the probation officer having to write it down for an hour after the meeting.
That is making a big difference already, saving hours of time and probation officers. So I am convinced that someone who has come out come here from the commercial world, that the more we embrace technology to enable our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
frontline staff to deliver excellent public services, the better. My Lords.
One of the things that I am spending a lot of time focusing on is how we can embrace technology to ensure that specifically, the prison and probation service, which I know is in the justice area, not the Home Office area, has an ability to get things more accurately done, but also that enables the frontline staff to focus on what they do best, which is to rehabilitate people, not to fill out forms. And that is why Justice Transcribe, which may sound like a very straightforward addition, which is basically using AI to dictate what happened in a meeting with an offender, rather than the probation officer having to write it down for an hour after the meeting.
That is making a big difference already, saving hours of time and probation officers. So I am convinced that someone who has come out come here from the commercial world, that the more we embrace technology to enable our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
frontline staff to deliver excellent public services, the better. My Lords.
19:51
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I'm very grateful to my noble the. £500 which has been all.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
£500 which has been all. Over the media. And which. Was referred. To by the noble Lord Lord Marks. It makes. Eminent sense that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Eminent sense that. This was an operational decision. money. And it enabled. This vile person
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And it enabled. This vile person to be put on a plane and get out of our country. As. Soon as possible. So I very much.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hope that the answer. Given. By my noble friend. Will be picked up in. The media.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The media. contrary. Media stories that have been out there today. You hear.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my noble friend for her question and comment, and I just think the we need to make sure that think the we need to make sure that our operational colleagues, operational civil servants on the front line, who we trust with a huge amount of responsibility, we make sure that we support them in their decisions that they make. When it is such a sensible and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
commercial decision such as this. My Lords, I thank my noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response to this statement, and he has already said
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I'm very grateful to my noble the. £500 which has been all.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
£500 which has been all. Over the media. And which. Was referred. To by the noble Lord Lord Marks. It makes. Eminent sense that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Eminent sense that. This was an operational decision. money. And it enabled. This vile person
**** Possible New Speaker ****
And it enabled. This vile person to be put on a plane and get out of our country. As. Soon as possible. So I very much.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Hope that the answer. Given. By my noble friend. Will be picked up in. The media.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The media. contrary. Media stories that have been out there today. You hear.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my noble friend for her question and comment, and I just think the we need to make sure that think the we need to make sure that our operational colleagues, operational civil servants on the front line, who we trust with a huge amount of responsibility, we make sure that we support them in their decisions that they make. When it is such a sensible and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
commercial decision such as this. My Lords, I thank my noble
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response to this statement, and he has already said
19:52
Baroness Blower (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blower (Labour)
more than once from the dispatch box that any release in error is is one too many. I wonder, therefore, if he can if he can say whether we have a time frame for Damian Owen's report so that we can think about when we might return to this. And, and, and I hope that we'll be able to see a significant decrease. And I would like to say that I think that the, the notion of the checklist used, of course, extensively in medicine and increasingly used in other places is a thoroughly good idea and I'm sure that it will make a huge difference.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So Dame Lynne Owens is going to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So Dame Lynne Owens is going to start immediately. We hope to get the report back within eight weeks. the report back within eight weeks. She'll be covering the facts of the case and establish what's actually going on. She'll consider all the operational policies that we have and whether they're fit for purpose, and make recommendations of how we can reduce the number of releases can reduce the number of releases an error. And peers will have the opportunity to scrutinise the recommendations that she puts recommendations that she puts forward.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I welcome. The noble Lord. The Minister's assurance that changes will be made to the release. Process to ensure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Accountability at. The highest level in the prison,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So Dame Lynne Owens is going to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
So Dame Lynne Owens is going to start immediately. We hope to get the report back within eight weeks. the report back within eight weeks. She'll be covering the facts of the case and establish what's actually going on. She'll consider all the operational policies that we have and whether they're fit for purpose, and make recommendations of how we can reduce the number of releases can reduce the number of releases an error. And peers will have the opportunity to scrutinise the recommendations that she puts recommendations that she puts forward.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I welcome. The noble Lord. The Minister's assurance that changes will be made to the release. Process to ensure.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Accountability at. The highest level in the prison,
19:53
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
which is, of course, the governor. But as. We observe the rising error rate, which actually seems to be which actually seems to be accelerating, and the rather, let's call it ad hoc decision to give the deportee £500 to take his plane, does it give the noble Lord, the minister, pause to wonder about the quality of training and possibly management of frontline staff in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the prison system today? I think it's a very good
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think it's a very good question about training of our frontline staff and of our leadership as well, not just in
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
which is, of course, the governor. But as. We observe the rising error rate, which actually seems to be which actually seems to be accelerating, and the rather, let's call it ad hoc decision to give the deportee £500 to take his plane, does it give the noble Lord, the minister, pause to wonder about the quality of training and possibly management of frontline staff in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the prison system today? I think it's a very good
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think it's a very good question about training of our frontline staff and of our leadership as well, not just in
19:54
Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
leadership as well, not just in prisons, but also in probation. I was fortunate before I was offered this job that I did a review into prison officer training for the government, the previous government, and what was clear is lots of really good training going on, but we really needed to up our game. And I'd like to think that now I'm in this job and I will be at the allocations meeting coming up soon, that this is going to be something I want to get done.
And it's not just about improving the time that prison officers get trained when they join the service. That needs to be longer, but it's also what they're taught and how they are taught. And let me give you the noble Lord one example, we teach people how to teach prison officers how to restrain prisoners who are being aggressive and potentially dangerous. We do that well, but we also also we need to do well is to teach people how to de-escalate problems by using the skills of talking and understanding the the situation they're in, so they can avoid using physical means.
So I think there is an awful lot more that needs to be done. And I'd be interested to know whether Dame Lynne Owens in her report talks about training, too, and I suspect she will. And that'll be something
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that I will happily take on board. My Lords is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords is. We are not due to return to the bill. Until 2003. I beg to move
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill. Until 2003. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until that. Point, the House stands
And it's not just about improving the time that prison officers get trained when they join the service. That needs to be longer, but it's also what they're taught and how they are taught. And let me give you the noble Lord one example, we teach people how to teach prison officers how to restrain prisoners who are being aggressive and potentially dangerous. We do that well, but we also also we need to do well is to teach people how to de-escalate problems by using the skills of talking and understanding the the situation they're in, so they can avoid using physical means.
So I think there is an awful lot more that needs to be done. And I'd be interested to know whether Dame Lynne Owens in her report talks about training, too, and I suspect she will. And that'll be something
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that I will happily take on board. My Lords is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords is. We are not due to return to the bill. Until 2003. I beg to move
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill. Until 2003. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until that. Point, the House stands
19:57
House Adjourned During Pleasure Until 20:03
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report Report of Report of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report of the. Report of the. Planning Report of the. Planning and Infrastructure Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move that there is now further consideration of the Bill. The question. Is. That this bill be now further
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That this bill be now further that. Opinion will say, content. Country not content. The contents. Have it. Amendment 158A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it. Amendment 158A. Lord Lansley my Lords this this group consists of those amendments group consists of those amendments that relate to the question of the circumstances under which the levy circumstances under which the levy for the Nature Restoration Fund should be made mandatory. Noble should be made mandatory. Noble Lady. The Minister may recall that at Committee, this was not the subject of an amendment or a subject of an amendment or a substantive debate, but a an exchange as to trying to define
House Adjourned During Pleasure Until 20:03
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report Report of Report of the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Report of the. Report of the. Planning Report of the. Planning and Infrastructure Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move that there is now further consideration of the Bill. The question. Is. That this bill be now further
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That this bill be now further that. Opinion will say, content. Country not content. The contents. Have it. Amendment 158A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it. Amendment 158A. Lord Lansley my Lords this this group consists of those amendments group consists of those amendments that relate to the question of the circumstances under which the levy circumstances under which the levy for the Nature Restoration Fund should be made mandatory. Noble should be made mandatory. Noble Lady. The Minister may recall that at Committee, this was not the subject of an amendment or a subject of an amendment or a substantive debate, but a an exchange as to trying to define
20:05
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
under exceptional circumstances. The question is, under what exceptional circumstances? I'm very grateful to officials who gave me the benefit of time and advice yesterday. So let me start with amendment 158A the reason I tabled that was because it was not apparent to me that an amendment to an environmental delivery plan could be made simply in order to make the levy mandatory. After the EDP has been made, I'm assured that the powers are available in clause 62 for the purpose of amending it, and that that can be done in order to make the levy mandatory in circumstances where the EDP has already been made.
I hope the Minister is in the happy position of being able to assure me that clause 62 can do that clause. Amendment one six for a in my name is is therefore the substantive clause in this group, in my view, in that I tried to establish in discussions with the Department
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what the. Circumstances are. In which the levy should be mandatory. These really, I think, if I can paraphrase, came down to two things. Firstly, that there would be there would be occasions when Natural England, in order to fulfil the objectives of its fulfil the objectives of its environmental delivery plan, would need full coverage of the levy to deliver the plan. And if the if there were not full coverage i.e. if some developers chose to go down if some developers chose to go down the route of not offering to pay the levy, then the EDP would not be able to be delivered.
And those who had made made such a commitment to pay the levy would not be. Able to pay the levy would not be. Able to fulfil their environmental obligations through that route. So obligations through that route. So where I am is that I actually think so. That was the first. So that was so. That was the first. So that was the question of full coverage. The second was that there would be circumstances where a there's a large project like a nationally significant infrastructure project significant infrastructure project with essentially one developer.
And if if in Natural England were to structure, make an environmental delivery plan and that developer or that project controller chose not to go down the route of paying the levy, then all of the work done on the EDP would be pointless and it would make no progress. Can I just say 164A is now in order to try and and arrive at the point where we can specify much more clearly in the bill the circumstances in which the mandatory levy can be made mandatory.
I don't think this is an unimportant. I think it's a very important issue from the point of view of the development community. And again, I remind the noble Lords of my registered interest, but I relying not upon that, but upon, for example, the submissions and representations that have been made publicly to the to the government about this from the Home Builders Federation, amongst others. They are very concerned because the whole purpose, from their point of view, is to give developers the choice between paying, meeting their environmental obligations through the habitats and other regulations, or going down the route of an EDP with the opportunity to meet their obligations through the payment of the levy.
If it is made mandatory, the choice simply doesn't exist anymore. And so for that reason, I want to define the circumstances in a clear way in the bill. I think the latter one about a single developer isn't really a substantive problem. If Natural England goes down the route of consulting on a potential EDP, I think it will be a matter of necessity that the developer concerned is part of that consultation. And Natural England arrives at a at a very considered view as to whether the developer in that particular instance is going to pay the levy or not go down that route or not.
And that will determine whether the levy can be made and etcetera. State can rest upon the results of that consultation. However, I do think there is a case where there are one or more multiple number of developers who are associated with a particular. Area. For example, in EDP might cover a number of development sites. It might range across a wider area, and where there's a number of developers, one or more may commit to pay the levy, and it may be that it is not possible, literally not possible, to meet the objectives of the EDP without the others paying the levy.
If they choose to go down an alternative route, they may not be able to meet their habitat regulations requirements because they're not. They would they would actually be mitigated through the mechanism of the EDP. Or indeed, they may be trying to freeload off those who are paying the levy by saying, well, we'll meet our habitat regulation objectives, requirements. But actually in practice, they would be met through the EDP managed by Natural England and paid for by other developers.
So I think there is a case for a mandatory levy, but I don't think the bill says what those circumstances are, and I'm afraid I don't think it is at all satisfactory to leave the power unspecified, because it will increasingly, in my view, be a temptation for Natural England to initiate an environmental delivery plan, do the work, set up the potential draft, consult upon it, and then reach the conclusion in their own minds that only by making it mandatory will they secure the necessary coverage in order to fund an EDP.
So far from it being an exception, we will find that Natural England is increasingly defaulting towards mandatory levy payments as the basis upon which they can proceed with their ambitious environmental delivery plans. And that's not where we were told this would be going. So in my view, I don't I won't press one six 4 or 1 five eight. I don't think they are the what we require in the bill is as yet specified in those amendments. I can well see that my noble friend with his amendment 164 could do us a great service, because if we were to take these provisions out, it would it would press the government to reinsert them with the necessary detail of how and when the mandatory levy should all be imposed by way of substituting for what is in the existing subsections four and five of the clause.
However, if my noble friend were to take the view that it would be better for the noble Lady the Minister to give an assurance that she will consider whether there is scope and a possibility for specifying the conditions under which the levy levy is mandatory, and narrowing that down to the kind of examples that I've referred to in my introductory remarks. I would be happy with that, since I don't want us to take out the mandatory levy entirely.
I want us to be able to specify it in more detail. I beg to move for the purposes of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
debate. Amendment 158A. Amendment proposed. Clause 62. Page 97.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Page 97. Line 36 at end insert subject to subsection. Two A as printed on the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. My Lords, I've been sitting for the last eight minutes next to my the last eight minutes next to my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I'm slightly concerned with what he's
I hope the Minister is in the happy position of being able to assure me that clause 62 can do that clause. Amendment one six for a in my name is is therefore the substantive clause in this group, in my view, in that I tried to establish in discussions with the Department
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what the. Circumstances are. In which the levy should be mandatory. These really, I think, if I can paraphrase, came down to two things. Firstly, that there would be there would be occasions when Natural England, in order to fulfil the objectives of its fulfil the objectives of its environmental delivery plan, would need full coverage of the levy to deliver the plan. And if the if there were not full coverage i.e. if some developers chose to go down if some developers chose to go down the route of not offering to pay the levy, then the EDP would not be able to be delivered.
And those who had made made such a commitment to pay the levy would not be. Able to pay the levy would not be. Able to fulfil their environmental obligations through that route. So obligations through that route. So where I am is that I actually think so. That was the first. So that was so. That was the first. So that was the question of full coverage. The second was that there would be circumstances where a there's a large project like a nationally significant infrastructure project significant infrastructure project with essentially one developer.
And if if in Natural England were to structure, make an environmental delivery plan and that developer or that project controller chose not to go down the route of paying the levy, then all of the work done on the EDP would be pointless and it would make no progress. Can I just say 164A is now in order to try and and arrive at the point where we can specify much more clearly in the bill the circumstances in which the mandatory levy can be made mandatory.
I don't think this is an unimportant. I think it's a very important issue from the point of view of the development community. And again, I remind the noble Lords of my registered interest, but I relying not upon that, but upon, for example, the submissions and representations that have been made publicly to the to the government about this from the Home Builders Federation, amongst others. They are very concerned because the whole purpose, from their point of view, is to give developers the choice between paying, meeting their environmental obligations through the habitats and other regulations, or going down the route of an EDP with the opportunity to meet their obligations through the payment of the levy.
If it is made mandatory, the choice simply doesn't exist anymore. And so for that reason, I want to define the circumstances in a clear way in the bill. I think the latter one about a single developer isn't really a substantive problem. If Natural England goes down the route of consulting on a potential EDP, I think it will be a matter of necessity that the developer concerned is part of that consultation. And Natural England arrives at a at a very considered view as to whether the developer in that particular instance is going to pay the levy or not go down that route or not.
And that will determine whether the levy can be made and etcetera. State can rest upon the results of that consultation. However, I do think there is a case where there are one or more multiple number of developers who are associated with a particular. Area. For example, in EDP might cover a number of development sites. It might range across a wider area, and where there's a number of developers, one or more may commit to pay the levy, and it may be that it is not possible, literally not possible, to meet the objectives of the EDP without the others paying the levy.
If they choose to go down an alternative route, they may not be able to meet their habitat regulations requirements because they're not. They would they would actually be mitigated through the mechanism of the EDP. Or indeed, they may be trying to freeload off those who are paying the levy by saying, well, we'll meet our habitat regulation objectives, requirements. But actually in practice, they would be met through the EDP managed by Natural England and paid for by other developers.
So I think there is a case for a mandatory levy, but I don't think the bill says what those circumstances are, and I'm afraid I don't think it is at all satisfactory to leave the power unspecified, because it will increasingly, in my view, be a temptation for Natural England to initiate an environmental delivery plan, do the work, set up the potential draft, consult upon it, and then reach the conclusion in their own minds that only by making it mandatory will they secure the necessary coverage in order to fund an EDP.
So far from it being an exception, we will find that Natural England is increasingly defaulting towards mandatory levy payments as the basis upon which they can proceed with their ambitious environmental delivery plans. And that's not where we were told this would be going. So in my view, I don't I won't press one six 4 or 1 five eight. I don't think they are the what we require in the bill is as yet specified in those amendments. I can well see that my noble friend with his amendment 164 could do us a great service, because if we were to take these provisions out, it would it would press the government to reinsert them with the necessary detail of how and when the mandatory levy should all be imposed by way of substituting for what is in the existing subsections four and five of the clause.
However, if my noble friend were to take the view that it would be better for the noble Lady the Minister to give an assurance that she will consider whether there is scope and a possibility for specifying the conditions under which the levy levy is mandatory, and narrowing that down to the kind of examples that I've referred to in my introductory remarks. I would be happy with that, since I don't want us to take out the mandatory levy entirely.
I want us to be able to specify it in more detail. I beg to move for the purposes of this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
debate. Amendment 158A. Amendment proposed. Clause 62. Page 97.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Page 97. Line 36 at end insert subject to subsection. Two A as printed on the marshalled list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. My Lords, I've been sitting for the last eight minutes next to my the last eight minutes next to my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I'm slightly concerned with what he's
20:13
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
slightly concerned with what he's saying, because I think he's accurately painted a picture by which there's there's going to be a drift, there's going to be an expectation. There's going to be a move towards mandation by Natural England for an EDP. And I've been concerned for a while that the process by which an EDP might be consulted upon and built and consensus whatever, could take a long time. I mean, I think, my Lords, it's very unlikely that we're going to get any EDPs operational in this Parliament.
Such is the process that's outlined with multiple rounds of consultation and so forth. So I paint a picture, an alternative picture to that of my noble friend Lord Lansley, where there's a developer who just has to get on this site, which he's trying to develop, is eating its head off in interest. There might be actually demand for the homes. Who knows? They've got to get on and they can't afford to wait for that third year. And so they make they cut and run and they go with a private operator under the Habitats Regulation, a proper scheme.
I'm not talking about shortcuts, but they can get on with it. And I think the problem with Mandation is they could end up paying twice. And that's no good, because this whole bill is meant to be speeding up development. And if they can have a route to developing more quickly whilst delivering the environmental benefits without going down the EDP route, it should be open to them. And I'm just concerned that the mandation and the slippery slope of towards Mandation being the default position, which my noble friend has laid out, would actually see development being slowed up when it could be speeded up because who wants to pay twice rather than get on with it? They hold back on the supposition that in due course, the EDP will somehow come to the rescue.
And this is this is working against the role of private sectors in innovating and bringing new techniques. It's reinforcing the notion that only Natural England that dead hand of the state has a monopoly on how these things should be delivered. And I think that's dangerous. So I'm not going to talk against my noble friend, but I don't feel he's entirely covered. That double jeopardy point, which is the logical conclusion of the amendments he lays. And I just wonder whether, in accepting that my noble friend Lord Roborough may, may press his amendment, in which case the it will come back at report at Third Reading.
But if it does, we need to consider that double jeopardy point. The point
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that paying twice. I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lansley's
Such is the process that's outlined with multiple rounds of consultation and so forth. So I paint a picture, an alternative picture to that of my noble friend Lord Lansley, where there's a developer who just has to get on this site, which he's trying to develop, is eating its head off in interest. There might be actually demand for the homes. Who knows? They've got to get on and they can't afford to wait for that third year. And so they make they cut and run and they go with a private operator under the Habitats Regulation, a proper scheme.
I'm not talking about shortcuts, but they can get on with it. And I think the problem with Mandation is they could end up paying twice. And that's no good, because this whole bill is meant to be speeding up development. And if they can have a route to developing more quickly whilst delivering the environmental benefits without going down the EDP route, it should be open to them. And I'm just concerned that the mandation and the slippery slope of towards Mandation being the default position, which my noble friend has laid out, would actually see development being slowed up when it could be speeded up because who wants to pay twice rather than get on with it? They hold back on the supposition that in due course, the EDP will somehow come to the rescue.
And this is this is working against the role of private sectors in innovating and bringing new techniques. It's reinforcing the notion that only Natural England that dead hand of the state has a monopoly on how these things should be delivered. And I think that's dangerous. So I'm not going to talk against my noble friend, but I don't feel he's entirely covered. That double jeopardy point, which is the logical conclusion of the amendments he lays. And I just wonder whether, in accepting that my noble friend Lord Roborough may, may press his amendment, in which case the it will come back at report at Third Reading.
But if it does, we need to consider that double jeopardy point. The point
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that paying twice. I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lansley's
20:16
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
noble friend Lord Lansley's amendments 158 and 164, which are seeking to understand why the Nature Resource Levy may be mandatory. That would appear to go against the sense of the whole of part three, where it is supposed to offer an alternative to the existing system of dealing with environmental planning matters, if any, have the power to make the mandatory, then what is to stop them from exercising that power unfettered? And in all cases, the solution to not getting reassurance on these amendments is to take out this power, this power entirely, which is the effect of my own amendments 164 and my noble friend made a, I think, a point worth the noble Baroness Stern Minister considering whether she could reassure the House, whether those conditions could be tightened up and made more explicit and inspire more confidence.
I do hope the noble Baroness the Minister is able to reassure the House and I will. I will follow on from her response in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my approach to my amendment 164. My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly, just in case there is a move to test the House on amendment 164, in the name of Lord Roborough. Whilst we understand the intent behind this proposal, we on these benches are not persuaded that
I do hope the noble Baroness the Minister is able to reassure the House and I will. I will follow on from her response in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
my approach to my amendment 164. My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly, just in case there is a move to test the House on amendment 164, in the name of Lord Roborough. Whilst we understand the intent behind this proposal, we on these benches are not persuaded that
20:18
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
removing the provision for mandatory payments to Nature Restoration Fund would be a step in the right direction if developers choose to proceed through an EDP route, it is only right that they contribute to the environmental mitigation and restoration measures that make those plans effective, allowing them to opt out of such payments risks undermining the consistency and fairness of the system, and could weaken the overall purpose of the fund. To ensure that development contributes positively to nature recovery. So therefore, we we approach this amendment and if there's a test of the House with some considerable
**** Possible New Speaker ****
caution. My Lords. This group of amendments seeks to examine the circumstances in to examine the circumstances in which an environmental delivery plan and the associated levy payment could be mandatory. Amendment 164, in the name of the noble Lord Roborough, would wholly noble Lord Roborough, would wholly remove the option for an EDP to be mandatory. Amendment 164 A in the name of the noble Lord Lansley name of the noble Lord Lansley would significantly restrict the circumstances in which an EDP could be made mandatory, and I would like be made mandatory, and I would like to first seek to assure noble Lords, as I have previously stressed in committee debates, that this committee debates, that this scenario of mandatory EDPs and levy payments will only arise in limited, exceptional circumstances.
I'm exceptional circumstances. I'm going to explain a bit more. I know the noble Lord Lansley said. I'd say that again, which I have, but say that again, which I have, but I'm going to go into a little bit more detail to try and reassure noble Lords. A key purpose of the noble Lords. A key purpose of the NRF is to offer developers an alternative way to meet their environmental obligations, so it is environmental obligations, so it is not our intention to make EDPs the only route available.
As I've set only route available. As I've set out, Natural England are only able to recommend that an EDP be mandatory where they believe this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
caution. My Lords. This group of amendments seeks to examine the circumstances in to examine the circumstances in which an environmental delivery plan and the associated levy payment could be mandatory. Amendment 164, in the name of the noble Lord Roborough, would wholly noble Lord Roborough, would wholly remove the option for an EDP to be mandatory. Amendment 164 A in the name of the noble Lord Lansley name of the noble Lord Lansley would significantly restrict the circumstances in which an EDP could be made mandatory, and I would like be made mandatory, and I would like to first seek to assure noble Lords, as I have previously stressed in committee debates, that this committee debates, that this scenario of mandatory EDPs and levy payments will only arise in limited, exceptional circumstances.
I'm exceptional circumstances. I'm going to explain a bit more. I know the noble Lord Lansley said. I'd say that again, which I have, but say that again, which I have, but I'm going to go into a little bit more detail to try and reassure noble Lords. A key purpose of the noble Lords. A key purpose of the NRF is to offer developers an alternative way to meet their environmental obligations, so it is environmental obligations, so it is not our intention to make EDPs the only route available.
As I've set only route available. As I've set out, Natural England are only able to recommend that an EDP be mandatory where they believe this
20:19
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)
is necessary and they will be required to set out their reasoning within that EDP. This would form part of the consultation on the EDP, allowing developers and others to support or oppose this approach, and the responses to that consultation would of course, form part of the Secretary of State's consideration. Before making that EDP, we consider these steps represent a significant consultative and democratic safeguard. However, we also recognise that there is interest in what circumstances the government considers it may be necessary for an EDP to be mandatory rather than optional.
We consider there are two broad possibilities. Firstly, instances where the ability to make an EDP mandatory provides crucial assurance to Natural England and to the taxpayer. For example, where Natural England to work with a developer and invest significant resources into preparing a bespoke EDP to address the impacts of a single large development, such as a piece of energy infrastructure that EDP is not likely to be usable by anyone else. If the developer or promoter subsequently chose to discharge their environmental obligations via a different route, that cost of developing the EDP will be wasted.
It's important, therefore, to have a mechanism to provide certainty that an EDP will be used in such a scenario. Secondly, if an EDP could only secure the right conservation measures to pass the overall improvement test, if all developers in scope paid in. But consultation showed that a small minority of developers did not wish to do so, it may be reasonable for Natural England to recommend, and for the Secretary of State to agree that the EDP should be mandatory, a consideration of the overall benefits to growth and development would be properly in the gift of the Secretary of the Secretary of State.
In this scenario, it's also important to note that the bill contains a duty on the Secretary of State in drafting the levy regulations to ensure that even where payment of the levy is mandatory, it does not make development economically unviable as this would not deliver the win win the NRF is seeking to achieve. Noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. They are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, which will enable stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on regulations before they are made in developing the regulations.
We will, of course, work closely with stakeholders to ensure the effective operation of the levy system and with this reassurance as to the limited circumstances where the levy could be mandatory, I hope the noble Earl Lords feel able to withdraw their amendments. Amendment 1851. Sorry 158A also in the name of the noble Lord Lansley seeks to limit circumstances where an EDP could be amended so as to make payment of the levy mandatory. I would assure the noble Lord that while we do not envisage Natural England amending an EDP to make payment of the levy mandatory, the bill already provides that an EDP could be amended in this way.
Such a scenario would be very unlikely to materialise, because the Secretary of State would need to consider whether making an EDP mandatory meets the high legal bar of this being necessary. However, if it did, the bill is drafted already allows for this to happen. Crucially, following further public consultation and, of course, the consent of the Secretary of State. With this reassurance, I hope the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble law will be able to withdraw his amendment. I'm grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I think it's a really important one. What the noble Lady the minister was able to say certainly added was able to say certainly added something new in terms of the.
We consider there are two broad possibilities. Firstly, instances where the ability to make an EDP mandatory provides crucial assurance to Natural England and to the taxpayer. For example, where Natural England to work with a developer and invest significant resources into preparing a bespoke EDP to address the impacts of a single large development, such as a piece of energy infrastructure that EDP is not likely to be usable by anyone else. If the developer or promoter subsequently chose to discharge their environmental obligations via a different route, that cost of developing the EDP will be wasted.
It's important, therefore, to have a mechanism to provide certainty that an EDP will be used in such a scenario. Secondly, if an EDP could only secure the right conservation measures to pass the overall improvement test, if all developers in scope paid in. But consultation showed that a small minority of developers did not wish to do so, it may be reasonable for Natural England to recommend, and for the Secretary of State to agree that the EDP should be mandatory, a consideration of the overall benefits to growth and development would be properly in the gift of the Secretary of the Secretary of State.
In this scenario, it's also important to note that the bill contains a duty on the Secretary of State in drafting the levy regulations to ensure that even where payment of the levy is mandatory, it does not make development economically unviable as this would not deliver the win win the NRF is seeking to achieve. Noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. They are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, which will enable stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on regulations before they are made in developing the regulations.
We will, of course, work closely with stakeholders to ensure the effective operation of the levy system and with this reassurance as to the limited circumstances where the levy could be mandatory, I hope the noble Earl Lords feel able to withdraw their amendments. Amendment 1851. Sorry 158A also in the name of the noble Lord Lansley seeks to limit circumstances where an EDP could be amended so as to make payment of the levy mandatory. I would assure the noble Lord that while we do not envisage Natural England amending an EDP to make payment of the levy mandatory, the bill already provides that an EDP could be amended in this way.
Such a scenario would be very unlikely to materialise, because the Secretary of State would need to consider whether making an EDP mandatory meets the high legal bar of this being necessary. However, if it did, the bill is drafted already allows for this to happen. Crucially, following further public consultation and, of course, the consent of the Secretary of State. With this reassurance, I hope the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble law will be able to withdraw his amendment. I'm grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I think it's a really important one. What the noble Lady the minister was able to say certainly added was able to say certainly added something new in terms of the.
20:23
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lansley (Conservative)
something new in terms of the. Operation of the test of viability as a way of mitigating the risk that the mandatory levy would put developers in a disadvantageous position. I otherwise what she said was what I had previously understood. I personally don't think that amendment one six for a significantly narrowed the scope. I think it simply expressed what I hoped was the intention. I'd be very grateful. However, if the if the noble Lady the Minister would continue to consider whether, if not in the bill itself, then certainly in the regulations and the guidance, Natural England is deterred from pressing the Secretary of State constantly to be thinking of making the the the levy mandatory simply in order to justify the fact they put all their effort and money into preparing EDPs in the first place, which is, I'm afraid, part of the argument that they will inevitably present.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But subject to that request, may I A. Is it your. Lordships pleasure that this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendments. One. Five 9. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. 1 six three. Lord Roborough not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 163A Lord Banner. The question is that amendment. 163A be.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
163A be. Agreed to. As many of that. Opinion will say. Content contrary. Not content. The contents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it. Amendment 163B. Lord Banner the. Question is that. Amendment 163B be agreed, as.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 163B be agreed, as. Many of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 164 Lord Roborough not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moved. Amendment 164A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Lansley not moved. Amendments one six. 5 to 1 six seven Lord Roborough
**** Possible New Speaker ****
5 to 1 six seven Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 168 Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question Taylor moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary not content. The Content contrary not content. The contents. Habit number 169 Lord Lansley amendments 170 and 170 a Lord Roborough not moved from 171 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 171 a Lord Cameron not moved. Amendments one seven 2 to 173 Lord Roborough not moved.
Amendment 173A Baroness Coffey. Not moved, not moved. Amendment one seven 4 to 1 seven eight Lord Roborough not moved. We come now to amendment 178A Lord Roborough not moved, not moved. Amendment 179 and 180 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendments 181 and 182 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 182A Lord Currie.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very carefully to the Minister's response, and I don't think it took us forward, didn't move us on. I'm us forward, didn't move us on. I'm still deeply concerned about the ability of Natural England to deliver this, so I'd like to test
**** Possible New Speaker ****
deliver this, so I'd like to test the opinion of the House. Amendment 182A be agreed, as Content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content. Content. The country not content. Not content. The question will be decided by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
But subject to that request, may I A. Is it your. Lordships pleasure that this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendments. One. Five 9. To.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To. 1 six three. Lord Roborough not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 163A Lord Banner. The question is that amendment. 163A be.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
163A be. Agreed to. As many of that. Opinion will say. Content contrary. Not content. The contents.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Have it. Amendment 163B. Lord Banner the. Question is that. Amendment 163B be agreed, as.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 163B be agreed, as. Many of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 164 Lord Roborough not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
moved. Amendment 164A.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Lansley not moved. Amendments one six. 5 to 1 six seven Lord Roborough
**** Possible New Speaker ****
5 to 1 six seven Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 168 Baroness Taylor moved formally. The question Taylor moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary not content. The Content contrary not content. The contents. Habit number 169 Lord Lansley amendments 170 and 170 a Lord Roborough not moved from 171 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 171 a Lord Cameron not moved. Amendments one seven 2 to 173 Lord Roborough not moved.
Amendment 173A Baroness Coffey. Not moved, not moved. Amendment one seven 4 to 1 seven eight Lord Roborough not moved. We come now to amendment 178A Lord Roborough not moved, not moved. Amendment 179 and 180 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendments 181 and 182 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 182A Lord Currie.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Very carefully to the Minister's response, and I don't think it took us forward, didn't move us on. I'm us forward, didn't move us on. I'm still deeply concerned about the ability of Natural England to deliver this, so I'd like to test
**** Possible New Speaker ****
deliver this, so I'd like to test the opinion of the House. Amendment 182A be agreed, as Content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Content. Content. The country not content. Not content. The question will be decided by
20:27
Division
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question will be decided by a division. I will notify the a division. I will notify the Heisman. Voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
UQ with.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No. I I think. I think. Yes. Thanks for your note. Yes. Yes. Thanks for your note. Yes. Yes. Thanks for your note. Yes. I'll go. On my door. So there's no That's. That's. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That's. Yeah. Yeah. Order, order! The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 182A be agreed as many that opinion will say content the contrary not will say content the contrary not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That. That. Decision. That. Decision. Sorry. That. Decision. Sorry. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That. Decision. Sorry. Yes. That. Decision. Sorry. Yes. This Now. Now. UQs. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. So. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. So. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. So. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. So. Yeah.
OK. OK. Thank you. Very. Thank you. Very. All Thank you. Very. All right. Thank you. Very. All right. Now Thank you. Very. All right. Now I can feel. That. It.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At At 1.1.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At 1.1. At 1.1. Oh.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords My Lords there My Lords there have My Lords there have voted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords there have voted contents 52 not contents 113. The Amendment Amendment 183 Lord Roborough. Not moved. We come now to amendment 183 a the Earl of Caithness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I beg. To move. Amendment 183.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 183. And 183 a and speak to amendment three B in my.
Division
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question will be decided by a division. I will notify the a division. I will notify the Heisman. Voting is open. Voting is now open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
UQ with.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
No. I I think. I think. Yes. Thanks for your note. Yes. Yes. Thanks for your note. Yes. Yes. Thanks for your note. Yes. I'll go. On my door. So there's no That's. That's. Yeah.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That's. Yeah. Yeah. Order, order! The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 182A be agreed as many that opinion will say content the contrary not will say content the contrary not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That. That. Decision. That. Decision. Sorry. That. Decision. Sorry. Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That. Decision. Sorry. Yes. That. Decision. Sorry. Yes. This Now. Now. UQs. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. No. Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. So. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. So. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. So. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Yeah yeah. So. Yeah.
OK. OK. Thank you. Very. Thank you. Very. All Thank you. Very. All right. Thank you. Very. All right. Now Thank you. Very. All right. Now I can feel. That. It.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At At 1.1.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
At 1.1. At 1.1. Oh.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords My Lords there My Lords there have My Lords there have voted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords there have voted contents 52 not contents 113. The Amendment Amendment 183 Lord Roborough. Not moved. We come now to amendment 183 a the Earl of Caithness.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I beg. To move. Amendment 183.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 183. And 183 a and speak to amendment three B in my.
20:38
The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
three B in my. Name. My Lord. These are identical amendments to those who moved at amendments to those who moved at committee. At committee, one will find on Hansard the Wednesday 17th.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. September this year in column
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September this year in column 202,327 that the Minister made some encouraging, gave some encouraging encouraging, gave some encouraging words to me. It was one of the few amendments to which he responded.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments to which he responded. Positively. And as though she had listened to what we said, and I. Was extremely.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Was extremely. Grateful to her then. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments I made. She said she arguments I made. She said she wanted to consider both these amendments further. I haven't heard amendments further. I haven't heard from noble Lady, the minister, which saddens me. I don't blame her. which saddens me. I don't blame her. It's her official. Should have picked up and made certain that I was informed of what the thoughts was informed of what the thoughts were before we came to report stage, were before we came to report stage, and I think that's discourteous, to say the very least.
My Lords, I hope that the noble lady, the hope that the noble lady, the Minister, has given this careful consideration and that, on reflection, she'll be able to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reflection, she'll be able to accept these amendments. I beg to move. Proposed clause 77, page 110,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Proposed clause 77, page 110, line 19. After unless insert 21
**** Possible New Speaker ****
days. I must say I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I must say I. Did smile when I saw this clause.
The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
three B in my. Name. My Lord. These are identical amendments to those who moved at amendments to those who moved at committee. At committee, one will find on Hansard the Wednesday 17th.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of. September this year in column
**** Possible New Speaker ****
September this year in column 202,327 that the Minister made some encouraging, gave some encouraging encouraging, gave some encouraging words to me. It was one of the few amendments to which he responded.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendments to which he responded. Positively. And as though she had listened to what we said, and I. Was extremely.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Was extremely. Grateful to her then. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments I made. She said she arguments I made. She said she wanted to consider both these amendments further. I haven't heard amendments further. I haven't heard from noble Lady, the minister, which saddens me. I don't blame her. which saddens me. I don't blame her. It's her official. Should have picked up and made certain that I was informed of what the thoughts was informed of what the thoughts were before we came to report stage, were before we came to report stage, and I think that's discourteous, to say the very least.
My Lords, I hope that the noble lady, the hope that the noble lady, the Minister, has given this careful consideration and that, on reflection, she'll be able to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reflection, she'll be able to accept these amendments. I beg to move. Proposed clause 77, page 110,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Proposed clause 77, page 110, line 19. After unless insert 21
**** Possible New Speaker ****
days. I must say I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I must say I. Did smile when I saw this clause.
20:39
Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench)
When the bill first came out. It just show an extraordinary lack of understanding of rural life. I mean, someone working for Forest England who is the probably the most likely statutory undertaker likely to be affected, who visits his forests? I mean, probably 3 or 4 times in 80 years. I mean, it depends how much operations are going on. But the farmer who who owns his own land and, and has to make every square metre of it count and pay the income that his family depend upon.
I mean, the, the the guy working for forest England who leaves his desk, he gets 21 days notice. But the farmer who probably gets back at 9:00 at night and opens his computer, tries to have a meal, catches up with family life, and he's informed that Natural England are coming onto his land tomorrow.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I mean. It's it's it's oblivious of what the farmer actually intends to do the farmer actually intends to do with the land and and and whether he's got maybe he's got people visiting. I mean, because he could be an environmental farmer, he be an environmental farmer, he could be ploughing it. He could be harrowing it, he could be harvesting the land. And of course, harvesting the land. And of course, at 9:00 at night, it's far too late to tell anyone, anyone or do anything about it.
So, I mean, I anything about it. So, I mean, I don't think Natural England would naturally behave like this because I think they've got more sense. But it is strange that this particular it is strange that this particular clause does give 21 days to the statutory undertaker and 24 hours statutory undertaker and 24 hours to the to the to the hard working farmer, and he seems absolutely strange, I mean, mind you, but it's strange, I mean, mind you, but it's only noticed that you're going to enter a ten day period would probably be enough for both, to be probably be enough for both, to be honest.
And and I do think that these two clauses need to be these two clauses need to be supported. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
supported. Thank you. My Lords. I rise to speak in support of both amendments in the name of my noble friend, the Earl name of my noble friend, the Earl of Caithness, to which I have added my name. I believe the arguments were made very powerfully and comprehensively at committee stage, comprehensively at committee stage, and very well summarised by the noble Lord Lord Cameron of Dillington farmers in particular should be given adequate notice of entry in order to take necessary precautions to manage their liability towards those entering liability towards those entering the farm, and to also manage the biosecurity risks that entrance to the farm posed to their animals.
If the farm posed to their animals. If my noble friend is dissatisfied with the noble Baroness the Minister's response, we would Minister's response, we would support him in testing the opinion of the House.
I mean, the, the the guy working for forest England who leaves his desk, he gets 21 days notice. But the farmer who probably gets back at 9:00 at night and opens his computer, tries to have a meal, catches up with family life, and he's informed that Natural England are coming onto his land tomorrow.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I mean. It's it's it's oblivious of what the farmer actually intends to do the farmer actually intends to do with the land and and and whether he's got maybe he's got people visiting. I mean, because he could be an environmental farmer, he be an environmental farmer, he could be ploughing it. He could be harrowing it, he could be harvesting the land. And of course, harvesting the land. And of course, at 9:00 at night, it's far too late to tell anyone, anyone or do anything about it.
So, I mean, I anything about it. So, I mean, I don't think Natural England would naturally behave like this because I think they've got more sense. But it is strange that this particular it is strange that this particular clause does give 21 days to the statutory undertaker and 24 hours statutory undertaker and 24 hours to the to the to the hard working farmer, and he seems absolutely strange, I mean, mind you, but it's strange, I mean, mind you, but it's only noticed that you're going to enter a ten day period would probably be enough for both, to be probably be enough for both, to be honest.
And and I do think that these two clauses need to be these two clauses need to be supported. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
supported. Thank you. My Lords. I rise to speak in support of both amendments in the name of my noble friend, the Earl name of my noble friend, the Earl of Caithness, to which I have added my name. I believe the arguments were made very powerfully and comprehensively at committee stage, comprehensively at committee stage, and very well summarised by the noble Lord Lord Cameron of Dillington farmers in particular should be given adequate notice of entry in order to take necessary precautions to manage their liability towards those entering liability towards those entering the farm, and to also manage the biosecurity risks that entrance to the farm posed to their animals.
If the farm posed to their animals. If my noble friend is dissatisfied with the noble Baroness the Minister's response, we would Minister's response, we would support him in testing the opinion of the House.
20:43
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)
the specific amendments, can I apologise for any discourtesy to the noble Lord, the Earl of Caithness? I'll take responsibility for that myself. Even though he was kind enough to say it's not my fault, but it's always down to the minister to make sure that peers get responded to, and I apologise get responded to, and I apologise if he didn't receive the response that he should have done. I thank that he should have done. I thank the noble Lord, the Earl of Caithness, for tabling amendments 183 and 183 B which would extend 183 and 183 B which would extend the written notice period required before Natural England could demand admission to land.
This is admission to land. This is currently set 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases. While we agree it's in other cases. While we agree it's important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions within the bill are consistent with powers of bill are consistent with powers of entry requirements in other pieces of legislation. Through aligning with other legislation, we have minimised the risk of confusion for minimised the risk of confusion for landowners while also recognising the justified difference in how we treat statutory undertakers, such treat statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and may require additional preparation to protect public safety and to prevent disruption.
There are also additional safeguards within the bill to ensure these powers cannot be used to gain access to a private dwelling. These safeguards further ensure that these powers cannot be used in any other manner, other than for carrying out surveys or investigations as specified within this part of the bill. I hope with this explanation and the assurance that the NRF is in line with standard practice, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I'm grateful to the Minister for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks and taking. A responsibility for the inefficiency
This is admission to land. This is currently set 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases. While we agree it's in other cases. While we agree it's important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions within the bill are consistent with powers of bill are consistent with powers of entry requirements in other pieces of legislation. Through aligning with other legislation, we have minimised the risk of confusion for minimised the risk of confusion for landowners while also recognising the justified difference in how we treat statutory undertakers, such treat statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and may require additional preparation to protect public safety and to prevent disruption.
There are also additional safeguards within the bill to ensure these powers cannot be used to gain access to a private dwelling. These safeguards further ensure that these powers cannot be used in any other manner, other than for carrying out surveys or investigations as specified within this part of the bill. I hope with this explanation and the assurance that the NRF is in line with standard practice, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I'm grateful to the Minister for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks and taking. A responsibility for the inefficiency
20:44
The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
responsibility for the inefficiency of her officials. The rest of her remarks don't please me so much. I'm very disappointed. There's no different argument to what was used
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at committee stage, and I. Just want. The minister to reflect. Does
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The minister to reflect. Does she really want to treat farmers in the way that they're being treated at the moment? This is not emergency legislation. There are emergency legislation. There are rightly cases legislation were emergency access is required and emergency access is required and less than 24 hours notice is needed. That is not the case here. I That is not the case here. I disagree with her entirely that it will be confusing to the landowner in this instance. I think this is in this instance.
I think this is just sheer discourtesy towards the hard working farmers of this hard working farmers of this country, and I think that she would resent it if she was a farmer and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
resent it if she was a farmer and was treated like this. So, my Lords, House. The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 1838 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content. Content
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion will say, content. Content contrary, not content, not content. I think the not content have it. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. The voting is now open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Do you want to go? Back? Would you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would you. Be there? Yeah. OK. Yes. Thank
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be there? Yeah. OK. Yes. Thank you for your for your. Yes. Your.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
at committee stage, and I. Just want. The minister to reflect. Does
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The minister to reflect. Does she really want to treat farmers in the way that they're being treated at the moment? This is not emergency legislation. There are emergency legislation. There are rightly cases legislation were emergency access is required and emergency access is required and less than 24 hours notice is needed. That is not the case here. I That is not the case here. I disagree with her entirely that it will be confusing to the landowner in this instance. I think this is in this instance.
I think this is just sheer discourtesy towards the hard working farmers of this hard working farmers of this country, and I think that she would resent it if she was a farmer and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
resent it if she was a farmer and was treated like this. So, my Lords, House. The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 1838 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content. Content
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion will say, content. Content contrary, not content, not content. I think the not content have it. Not content.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. The voting is now open. Clear the bar.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Do you want to go? Back? Would you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Would you. Be there? Yeah. OK. Yes. Thank
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Be there? Yeah. OK. Yes. Thank you for your for your. Yes. Your.
20:46
Division
-
Division
Yes. Yes. Abinger. Darlington. No. Yes. Yes. The Yes. The amendment. Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 183A be agreed to that opinion will 183A be agreed to that opinion will say. Content. Content to the contrary, not content, not content. contrary, not content, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords My Lords there My Lords there have My Lords there have voted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords there have voted contents 50, not contents 115. So contents 50, not contents 115. So the not contents habit, I suppose.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There you go.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 183B the Earl of Caithness. Not moved. Not moved. Amendments one eight 4 to 1 89A Amendments one eight 4 to 1 89A Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 190 Lord Roborough. Not moved. Amendment 191.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 183A be agreed to that opinion will 183A be agreed to that opinion will say. Content. Content to the contrary, not content, not content. contrary, not content, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I I think
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Yes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords My Lords there My Lords there have My Lords there have voted
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords there have voted contents 50, not contents 115. So contents 50, not contents 115. So the not contents habit, I suppose.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
There you go.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 183B the Earl of Caithness. Not moved. Not moved. Amendments one eight 4 to 1 89A Amendments one eight 4 to 1 89A Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 190 Lord Roborough. Not moved. Amendment 191.
20:56
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 191. My Lords, I did ask the noble Baroness the Minister, whether she might reflect on, on on the debate might reflect on, on on the debate we had earlier, and I'd be very interested to see whether she has anything to add.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, sorry.
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 191. My Lords, I did ask the noble Baroness the Minister, whether she might reflect on, on on the debate might reflect on, on on the debate we had earlier, and I'd be very interested to see whether she has anything to add.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Oh, sorry.
20:56
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A member proposed 191 leave out clause 83.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm grateful for the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord Roborough. The noble Lord asked for further assurances in asked for further assurances in respect of how land acquired under CPO could be returned. Where this is, where the land is no longer required. The down rules are existing non-statutory arrangements under which surplus land which was acquired by or under threat of compulsion, should be offered back to former owners, their successors or to sitting tenants in reference to land acquired under CPO in respect of part three.
As I explained, it's very unlikely that land acquired by compulsory purchase under an EDP would not be used. It is unlikely to be surplus. This is because if an EDP were revoked and the land may still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Where land has been compulsorily purchased is genuinely surplus, the critchell down rules would apply as it would for land purchase under any other CPO power.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A member proposed 191 leave out clause 83.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm grateful for the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord Roborough. The noble Lord asked for further assurances in asked for further assurances in respect of how land acquired under CPO could be returned. Where this is, where the land is no longer required. The down rules are existing non-statutory arrangements under which surplus land which was acquired by or under threat of compulsion, should be offered back to former owners, their successors or to sitting tenants in reference to land acquired under CPO in respect of part three.
As I explained, it's very unlikely that land acquired by compulsory purchase under an EDP would not be used. It is unlikely to be surplus. This is because if an EDP were revoked and the land may still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Where land has been compulsorily purchased is genuinely surplus, the critchell down rules would apply as it would for land purchase under any other CPO power.
20:57
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Roborough (Conservative)
My Lords, I'm very grateful to noble Baroness for for that addition to the debate. And on that basis, I, I would reserve the right to come back at Third Reading on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this matter, but I am happy to withdraw this amendment. Is it your pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 192 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 193 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 194 Baroness McIntosh not Amendment 194 Baroness McIntosh not moved. Amendments 195 and 196 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 197
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Roborough not moved. Amendment 197 Baroness McIntosh not moved. No no no.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this matter, but I am happy to withdraw this amendment. Is it your pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is finally withdrawn. Amendment 192 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 193 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 194 Baroness McIntosh not Amendment 194 Baroness McIntosh not moved. Amendments 195 and 196 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 197
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Roborough not moved. Amendment 197 Baroness McIntosh not moved. No no no.
20:58
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is my moment. I have waited all day. I have waited all day and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all night. 197 Baroness McIntosh. My Lords, it gives me great
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to and to move. Amendments 197 and 198. And can I Amendments 197 and 198. And can I take this opportunity to thank the Baroness Willis of Summertown for lending her name to both amendments 1971198 and to Baronesses Young and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for lending their. Support to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 197. I hope that the amendments. Are self-explanatory. They are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They are. If you like, flip sides of the same coin and they have.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
same coin and they have. Huge amount of support. Amongst interested parties. Such as interested parties. Such as insurance companies, environmental managers and others as I shall managers and others as I shall explain. So amendment 197 explains that developers have the automatic right to collect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is the capacity for this or not. We the capacity for this or not. We both houses Parliament approves schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the Water Management Act 2010, the purpose of which would be to end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems.
It has not yet been implemented in England, but it has been implemented with a degree of implemented with a degree of success in Wales. Amendment 198 similarly links the right to connect to the public sewer to first, having followed the new government's newly introduced National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems to provide a more robust incentive to developers to follow this guidance. In the absence of full implementation of schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act, 2010. Now, my Lords, why have I brought this back at report stage? And why is why are these two amendments necessary? The reason is effectively that without implementing schedule three and mand for sustainable drainage systems, and equally terminating the automatic right to connect, we are going to continue to see flooding of with the housing developments on the scale envisaged within this bill, we're going to see existing housing potentially flooded from the combined sewer overflow.
And what I regret most, may I just record my gratitude to the noble Lady, the Minister Baroness Taylor this evening, and also Baroness Hayman of Ullock for the meeting that we had. Can I ask the noble Lady the Minister this evening to convey my warmest regards to Baroness Hayman of Ullock, and wish her the speediest of possible recoveries, and thank Baroness Taylor of Stevenage for stepping in to her place this evening. But what is very apparent is that government objectives are not consistent, and there is a lack of alignment between the Department of Housing, which the Minister this evening represents, and the Department for Defra, who are actually quite keen on making Suds mandatory.
Put it simply, if you cannot manage what you're putting into the sewage system, you cannot control what comes out of the sewage system. And it's surely in the government's interest and it's economically sound to place more responsibility on housing developments to ease infrastructure pressure. So while one might be agnostic between the title of system, which is in evolving, whether it's Suds or sort of perhaps ponds or a more natural solution such as we had with the Pickering Slow the Flow project, which has been enormously successful, or more hard infrastructure, the likes of which was a large reservoir that was first envisaged in the Pickering Slow the Flow project, which was simply too expensive.
It doesn't really matter as long as they are well maintained, which other infrastructure is produced. And I think what we have to recognise at the moment, particularly in the context of this bill, is that the planning process as it currently exists, does not address water infrastructure early enough. Now, the fact that in England, developers have the automatic right to connect to surface water arising from new homes to the public sewer system, irrespective of whether there is capacity for this or not, is a very grave error, just that one simple action of implementing schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 would end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drains, paving the way for their widespread use.
As it stands, even with the national standards that were adopted by the government this year, Suds are still being used inconsistently, and the risk of surface water flooding is increasing significantly. That is why, in my view, it's absolutely vital that we adopt amendments 197 and 198 and right them onto the face of the bill. Now, in response to this debate at committee stage, the noble Lady, the Minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage concluded that basically it was sort of yes, it would be a good idea, but not yet.
Now it's 20 years, almost since we had the pit review, which recommended the mandatory use of Suds in all new developments. So it's incredibly disappointing that successive governments, I have to say, have all persuasions, have failed to implement schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act. So the rhetoric from the government seems to be that in general, it agrees with the principle of these amendments, but is concerned that it could lead to additional costs and delay the planning process.
I would say the contrary. I would put to the noble Lady that this evening that, in fact, if we had mandatory Suds and the qualified ending of the automatic right to connect, it would actually make the government's proposals for introducing more the large scale housing developments that they envisage to meet their target of 1.5 million homes in the next year. What is a recent development since committee stage, was the adoption and publication in the other place of the Environmental Audit Committee's report on flood resilience in England, and on their page 13, in box one, they specifically say that sustainable drainage Systems, often shortened to Suds, is a term for a set of environmentally friendly techniques that are designed to help manage and control surface water runoff close to where it falls.
The aim of Suds is to mimic natural water management processes by allowing water to infiltrate into the ground, evaporating away, or be stored again for later use, rather than immediately diverted into traditional drainage systems. Suds can include a number of different practices or mechanisms designed to drain or soak up surface water in a more sustainable way than draining water. Run off through a pipe into the sewer. Now, I do hope that bearing in mind that that is an all party, cross-party Select Committee of high standing in the other place, I hope that that will carry some weight with the government and in particular the Minister when she comes to respond this evening.
The pit review following the severe floods of 2007, made these recommendations way back in the pit review of 2008. And it is quite extraordinary that almost 20 years since that time, we are still in a position where we have not had either mandatory Suds imposed in law that they exist. We spent parliamentary time in both houses. There was consent of all parties in both houses. That mandatory suds were a good idea. Yet since 2010, when that act, the Flood and Water Management Act was enacted, successive governments have found it absolutely incapable to implement it.
And I would like to hear from the noble Lady if that is still the case, or if some progress has been made. The other major recommendation of the Pit review that has not yet been implemented was the automatic right to connect ending the automatic right to connect. And I really do believe that we owe it to Sir Michael Pitt, Michael Pitt, even Sir Michael Pitt, that we do actually implement what he proposed at that time. Also, the government's own review, the Independent Water Commission, chaired by Sir John Cunliffe, very strongly said that that we do need to have Suds on a mandatory basis to make sure that new developments do face the fact that we're not not going to put excess sewage into the system, meaning that the combined sewer overflow causing a public health problem when they actually go into existing developments.
And that is something I've not heard from the government as yet as to why they believe that this does not cause a public health problem, that in my. Sense, it's most certainly does. Also, by not terminating the automatic right to connect, Sir John Cunliffe concluded in his commission report, which I understand that the government did acknowledge and accept most of the major recommendations by continuing to have in place the automatic right to connect. It is putting pressure on the existing sewage network systems.
For those two fundamental reasons, I would urge the government to give us a degree of urgency. Then finally, I would like to refer to the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management Ciwem, who argue most forcibly, why these two amendments are needed and why there is a degree of urgency which is not reflected in this bill or in the government's thinking. And they, in their briefing to me in helping to draft these amendments, they say, and I quote, surface water flood risk in England has been significantly upgraded by the Environment Agency with projections for further increases by mid-century.
Storm sewage overflow discharges in 2024 numbered over 450,000, lasting a combined 3.6 million hours. Highway runoff is a major and unregulated problem, and water resources are a growing challenge, with 5,000,000,000l of extra water per day needed by 2050 as compared to today. And as we've heard earlier in proceedings on this bill, nutrient pollution is holding back housing delivery. In their view, Suds address all of these challenges, many simultaneously. If they are designed well, they go on to say that the government's recently introduced National Standards for Sustainable drainage Systems set out good practice design requirements for such multifunctional Suds.
But until a mandatory approach, as recommended by the Pip review following the summer's two seven 2007 floods, they believe that there will be no change and they argue most forcibly for a mandatory approach to Suds for major developments and end to the automatic right to connect with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
those few remarks, I beg to move. Amendment proposed. After clause 87. Insert a new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After clause 87. Insert a new clause sustainable. Drainage as printed on the marshalled list.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is my moment. I have waited all day. I have waited all day and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
all night. 197 Baroness McIntosh. My Lords, it gives me great
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to and to move. Amendments 197 and 198. And can I Amendments 197 and 198. And can I take this opportunity to thank the Baroness Willis of Summertown for lending her name to both amendments 1971198 and to Baronesses Young and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb for lending their. Support to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 197. I hope that the amendments. Are self-explanatory. They are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
They are. If you like, flip sides of the same coin and they have.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
same coin and they have. Huge amount of support. Amongst interested parties. Such as interested parties. Such as insurance companies, environmental managers and others as I shall managers and others as I shall explain. So amendment 197 explains that developers have the automatic right to collect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is the capacity for this or not. We the capacity for this or not. We both houses Parliament approves schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the Water Management Act 2010, the purpose of which would be to end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems.
It has not yet been implemented in England, but it has been implemented with a degree of implemented with a degree of success in Wales. Amendment 198 similarly links the right to connect to the public sewer to first, having followed the new government's newly introduced National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems to provide a more robust incentive to developers to follow this guidance. In the absence of full implementation of schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act, 2010. Now, my Lords, why have I brought this back at report stage? And why is why are these two amendments necessary? The reason is effectively that without implementing schedule three and mand for sustainable drainage systems, and equally terminating the automatic right to connect, we are going to continue to see flooding of with the housing developments on the scale envisaged within this bill, we're going to see existing housing potentially flooded from the combined sewer overflow.
And what I regret most, may I just record my gratitude to the noble Lady, the Minister Baroness Taylor this evening, and also Baroness Hayman of Ullock for the meeting that we had. Can I ask the noble Lady the Minister this evening to convey my warmest regards to Baroness Hayman of Ullock, and wish her the speediest of possible recoveries, and thank Baroness Taylor of Stevenage for stepping in to her place this evening. But what is very apparent is that government objectives are not consistent, and there is a lack of alignment between the Department of Housing, which the Minister this evening represents, and the Department for Defra, who are actually quite keen on making Suds mandatory.
Put it simply, if you cannot manage what you're putting into the sewage system, you cannot control what comes out of the sewage system. And it's surely in the government's interest and it's economically sound to place more responsibility on housing developments to ease infrastructure pressure. So while one might be agnostic between the title of system, which is in evolving, whether it's Suds or sort of perhaps ponds or a more natural solution such as we had with the Pickering Slow the Flow project, which has been enormously successful, or more hard infrastructure, the likes of which was a large reservoir that was first envisaged in the Pickering Slow the Flow project, which was simply too expensive.
It doesn't really matter as long as they are well maintained, which other infrastructure is produced. And I think what we have to recognise at the moment, particularly in the context of this bill, is that the planning process as it currently exists, does not address water infrastructure early enough. Now, the fact that in England, developers have the automatic right to connect to surface water arising from new homes to the public sewer system, irrespective of whether there is capacity for this or not, is a very grave error, just that one simple action of implementing schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 would end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drains, paving the way for their widespread use.
As it stands, even with the national standards that were adopted by the government this year, Suds are still being used inconsistently, and the risk of surface water flooding is increasing significantly. That is why, in my view, it's absolutely vital that we adopt amendments 197 and 198 and right them onto the face of the bill. Now, in response to this debate at committee stage, the noble Lady, the Minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage concluded that basically it was sort of yes, it would be a good idea, but not yet.
Now it's 20 years, almost since we had the pit review, which recommended the mandatory use of Suds in all new developments. So it's incredibly disappointing that successive governments, I have to say, have all persuasions, have failed to implement schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act. So the rhetoric from the government seems to be that in general, it agrees with the principle of these amendments, but is concerned that it could lead to additional costs and delay the planning process.
I would say the contrary. I would put to the noble Lady that this evening that, in fact, if we had mandatory Suds and the qualified ending of the automatic right to connect, it would actually make the government's proposals for introducing more the large scale housing developments that they envisage to meet their target of 1.5 million homes in the next year. What is a recent development since committee stage, was the adoption and publication in the other place of the Environmental Audit Committee's report on flood resilience in England, and on their page 13, in box one, they specifically say that sustainable drainage Systems, often shortened to Suds, is a term for a set of environmentally friendly techniques that are designed to help manage and control surface water runoff close to where it falls.
The aim of Suds is to mimic natural water management processes by allowing water to infiltrate into the ground, evaporating away, or be stored again for later use, rather than immediately diverted into traditional drainage systems. Suds can include a number of different practices or mechanisms designed to drain or soak up surface water in a more sustainable way than draining water. Run off through a pipe into the sewer. Now, I do hope that bearing in mind that that is an all party, cross-party Select Committee of high standing in the other place, I hope that that will carry some weight with the government and in particular the Minister when she comes to respond this evening.
The pit review following the severe floods of 2007, made these recommendations way back in the pit review of 2008. And it is quite extraordinary that almost 20 years since that time, we are still in a position where we have not had either mandatory Suds imposed in law that they exist. We spent parliamentary time in both houses. There was consent of all parties in both houses. That mandatory suds were a good idea. Yet since 2010, when that act, the Flood and Water Management Act was enacted, successive governments have found it absolutely incapable to implement it.
And I would like to hear from the noble Lady if that is still the case, or if some progress has been made. The other major recommendation of the Pit review that has not yet been implemented was the automatic right to connect ending the automatic right to connect. And I really do believe that we owe it to Sir Michael Pitt, Michael Pitt, even Sir Michael Pitt, that we do actually implement what he proposed at that time. Also, the government's own review, the Independent Water Commission, chaired by Sir John Cunliffe, very strongly said that that we do need to have Suds on a mandatory basis to make sure that new developments do face the fact that we're not not going to put excess sewage into the system, meaning that the combined sewer overflow causing a public health problem when they actually go into existing developments.
And that is something I've not heard from the government as yet as to why they believe that this does not cause a public health problem, that in my. Sense, it's most certainly does. Also, by not terminating the automatic right to connect, Sir John Cunliffe concluded in his commission report, which I understand that the government did acknowledge and accept most of the major recommendations by continuing to have in place the automatic right to connect. It is putting pressure on the existing sewage network systems.
For those two fundamental reasons, I would urge the government to give us a degree of urgency. Then finally, I would like to refer to the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management Ciwem, who argue most forcibly, why these two amendments are needed and why there is a degree of urgency which is not reflected in this bill or in the government's thinking. And they, in their briefing to me in helping to draft these amendments, they say, and I quote, surface water flood risk in England has been significantly upgraded by the Environment Agency with projections for further increases by mid-century.
Storm sewage overflow discharges in 2024 numbered over 450,000, lasting a combined 3.6 million hours. Highway runoff is a major and unregulated problem, and water resources are a growing challenge, with 5,000,000,000l of extra water per day needed by 2050 as compared to today. And as we've heard earlier in proceedings on this bill, nutrient pollution is holding back housing delivery. In their view, Suds address all of these challenges, many simultaneously. If they are designed well, they go on to say that the government's recently introduced National Standards for Sustainable drainage Systems set out good practice design requirements for such multifunctional Suds.
But until a mandatory approach, as recommended by the Pip review following the summer's two seven 2007 floods, they believe that there will be no change and they argue most forcibly for a mandatory approach to Suds for major developments and end to the automatic right to connect with
**** Possible New Speaker ****
those few remarks, I beg to move. Amendment proposed. After clause 87. Insert a new
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After clause 87. Insert a new clause sustainable. Drainage as printed on the marshalled list.
21:11
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb attached her name to this amendment in the name of the this amendment in the name of the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh. So I rise briefly with great pleasure to follow the noble lady, who with such patience waited to present this really terribly important group of amendments. And it's very disappointing that the length of the day and the hour means it's not. This group is not going to get the kind of attention that it deserves, but I will think it's worth highlighting the breadth of of political and non-political support in this amendment, also signed by the noble Lady Baroness Willis of Summertown, who, of course, is one of our acknowledged experts in this general space, and the noble Lady at Baroness Young of Old Scone.
I'm just going to make two additional remarks. We've already had a very comprehensive introduction to the background, the history, the very long history, and the arguments for this. But I'm going to refer to, I'm sure some noble lords here were in the Lord speaker's lecture this week, given by the noble lady Baroness May, not currently in her place, and one of the MPs from the in that asked the question said, isn't it really a problem that people today, constituents today expect to get the government to fix things in an hour or a day, just like they get something delivered from the internet? Well, maybe it is, but I think 16 years is quite long enough for people to wait for the implementation of the schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act.
And there is a real issue here. People often think the public often think that once the government's announced something, it's going to happen. And that's something we need more political education and awareness of. But surely they have the right to believe that once a law has been passed, there's been through all the scrutiny, the kind of effort we're putting in now to expect that it is going to be implemented. It's been thought to be carefully examined, understood to be a good idea, and the people expect it to be delivered, and it brings politics into disrepute.
When that is not delivered. So that, I think, is, if you like, the small p political argument for this amendment. In terms of the broader argument for Suds generally, I visited many such schemes, but the one that I'll point noble Lords to, and it's well worth visiting if you haven't seen it, is the lilac co-housing scheme in Leeds, which is built around the centrally around a central pond from which all of the water on the site drains into.
And we've spent many hours talking about how important green spaces are, how important supporting biodiversity is. We unfortunately didn't get to vote, but we still spent a lot of time talking about how important play space for children is. This is a way you can use sun, so well-designed suds can deliver so many other things that the government says it wants that the House has said it wants. So this is just simple, practical, common sense of how we should be designing the kind of communities, not just housing, that we desperately need.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I have. A particular attachment to this
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb attached her name to this amendment in the name of the this amendment in the name of the noble Lady Baroness McIntosh. So I rise briefly with great pleasure to follow the noble lady, who with such patience waited to present this really terribly important group of amendments. And it's very disappointing that the length of the day and the hour means it's not. This group is not going to get the kind of attention that it deserves, but I will think it's worth highlighting the breadth of of political and non-political support in this amendment, also signed by the noble Lady Baroness Willis of Summertown, who, of course, is one of our acknowledged experts in this general space, and the noble Lady at Baroness Young of Old Scone.
I'm just going to make two additional remarks. We've already had a very comprehensive introduction to the background, the history, the very long history, and the arguments for this. But I'm going to refer to, I'm sure some noble lords here were in the Lord speaker's lecture this week, given by the noble lady Baroness May, not currently in her place, and one of the MPs from the in that asked the question said, isn't it really a problem that people today, constituents today expect to get the government to fix things in an hour or a day, just like they get something delivered from the internet? Well, maybe it is, but I think 16 years is quite long enough for people to wait for the implementation of the schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act.
And there is a real issue here. People often think the public often think that once the government's announced something, it's going to happen. And that's something we need more political education and awareness of. But surely they have the right to believe that once a law has been passed, there's been through all the scrutiny, the kind of effort we're putting in now to expect that it is going to be implemented. It's been thought to be carefully examined, understood to be a good idea, and the people expect it to be delivered, and it brings politics into disrepute.
When that is not delivered. So that, I think, is, if you like, the small p political argument for this amendment. In terms of the broader argument for Suds generally, I visited many such schemes, but the one that I'll point noble Lords to, and it's well worth visiting if you haven't seen it, is the lilac co-housing scheme in Leeds, which is built around the centrally around a central pond from which all of the water on the site drains into.
And we've spent many hours talking about how important green spaces are, how important supporting biodiversity is. We unfortunately didn't get to vote, but we still spent a lot of time talking about how important play space for children is. This is a way you can use sun, so well-designed suds can deliver so many other things that the government says it wants that the House has said it wants. So this is just simple, practical, common sense of how we should be designing the kind of communities, not just housing, that we desperately need.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I have. A particular attachment to this
21:14
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A particular attachment to this amendment, and I think it's fair to say, going back into Defra, I was pretty surprised that we hadn't pretty surprised that we hadn't made any progress in getting this schedule three sorted. But yet again, it was the partner for housing that had put a block on it on the basis that apparently it was going to cost more money. And yet all it shows in a in a different way is it's just transferring the costs, both societal and financial, from instead of a developer trying to put together a community to actually a Bill pair.
And that's in terms of potentially higher costs, quite a lot of the costs. I know that we managed to secure and the government's continued of getting over £96 billion from the water company in order to be addressing certain things to do with sewerage. But this is one of those ridiculous situations that there's an obvious answer, as my noble friend Baroness Pickering has already mentioned, Sir John Cunliffe has said this should be done. So why isn't it done? Actually not just the committee from the Commons, but actually the committee in this place was very supportive and delighted that when I was in post briefly or for that year, we were going to get things done, we did the review, managed to get the deal over the line, then managed to put out a confirmation of our policy that we were going to do it, that we were going to do a consultation that got going as well.
And then the election happened. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand why a government coming in this may not be their top priority, despite actually this whole issue being one of their key campaigning messages in the 2024 election. And here is the solution ready made that they could just do at the stroke of a pen. And that's why it's concerning that we're not at this point yet. So thinking of the Select Committee of this House, I look people in the chamber or people waiting to vote, potentially Baroness Taylor of Bolton Lord Leong Lord Hollick.
There were certainly liberal Democrats and conservatives as they're there as well. And I would encourage them to think carefully before voting down the commencement of this schedule, because obviously, I appreciate the Labour whip will be on to try and block anything that isn't necessarily created by them. But the key points here are it will help. As my noble friend said, in reducing pressure on existing network and vitally, Ofwat as well, which was quoted, I think, by the Select Committee saying this will significantly reduce the cost now at this time of cost of living challenge, which is still the number one issue in this country when we've already seen water bills go up, needing to pay for infrastructure improvements and the like.
But nevertheless, here is an opportunity for the government to do the right thing and get on with this. And yet again, I'm afraid it'll be the Minister's department that is trying to block this. Indeed, when I asked a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, earlier this year, it suggested I'm just waiting for the page to reload, that the government was committed to doing suds in improving it in the NPPF and the like, and that it would be something that the Prime Minister planning to do.
In fact, in this, the answer came back. We will review the planning system holistically and consider whether further changes are required. To address Suds. Women consult on further planning reform, including national policy based decision making in 2025. Well, we're in quarter four 2025. Honestly, I would I don't know if my noble friend is planning to test the House or to consider bringing it back at Third Reading if we don't get a satisfactory answer. But this is absolutely key to making sure that we do.
Sensible government, sensible politics, not party politics. But this is something on which everybody has agreed, apart from a few people in MHCLG. And frankly, I do believe that the Lord should consider really pushing this through so that we get on with some
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sensible stuff in this bill. My Lords, I rise to talk on on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to talk on on this set of amendments, and I feel as if I'm on my own because whilst
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
A particular attachment to this amendment, and I think it's fair to say, going back into Defra, I was pretty surprised that we hadn't pretty surprised that we hadn't made any progress in getting this schedule three sorted. But yet again, it was the partner for housing that had put a block on it on the basis that apparently it was going to cost more money. And yet all it shows in a in a different way is it's just transferring the costs, both societal and financial, from instead of a developer trying to put together a community to actually a Bill pair.
And that's in terms of potentially higher costs, quite a lot of the costs. I know that we managed to secure and the government's continued of getting over £96 billion from the water company in order to be addressing certain things to do with sewerage. But this is one of those ridiculous situations that there's an obvious answer, as my noble friend Baroness Pickering has already mentioned, Sir John Cunliffe has said this should be done. So why isn't it done? Actually not just the committee from the Commons, but actually the committee in this place was very supportive and delighted that when I was in post briefly or for that year, we were going to get things done, we did the review, managed to get the deal over the line, then managed to put out a confirmation of our policy that we were going to do it, that we were going to do a consultation that got going as well.
And then the election happened. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand why a government coming in this may not be their top priority, despite actually this whole issue being one of their key campaigning messages in the 2024 election. And here is the solution ready made that they could just do at the stroke of a pen. And that's why it's concerning that we're not at this point yet. So thinking of the Select Committee of this House, I look people in the chamber or people waiting to vote, potentially Baroness Taylor of Bolton Lord Leong Lord Hollick.
There were certainly liberal Democrats and conservatives as they're there as well. And I would encourage them to think carefully before voting down the commencement of this schedule, because obviously, I appreciate the Labour whip will be on to try and block anything that isn't necessarily created by them. But the key points here are it will help. As my noble friend said, in reducing pressure on existing network and vitally, Ofwat as well, which was quoted, I think, by the Select Committee saying this will significantly reduce the cost now at this time of cost of living challenge, which is still the number one issue in this country when we've already seen water bills go up, needing to pay for infrastructure improvements and the like.
But nevertheless, here is an opportunity for the government to do the right thing and get on with this. And yet again, I'm afraid it'll be the Minister's department that is trying to block this. Indeed, when I asked a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, earlier this year, it suggested I'm just waiting for the page to reload, that the government was committed to doing suds in improving it in the NPPF and the like, and that it would be something that the Prime Minister planning to do.
In fact, in this, the answer came back. We will review the planning system holistically and consider whether further changes are required. To address Suds. Women consult on further planning reform, including national policy based decision making in 2025. Well, we're in quarter four 2025. Honestly, I would I don't know if my noble friend is planning to test the House or to consider bringing it back at Third Reading if we don't get a satisfactory answer. But this is absolutely key to making sure that we do.
Sensible government, sensible politics, not party politics. But this is something on which everybody has agreed, apart from a few people in MHCLG. And frankly, I do believe that the Lord should consider really pushing this through so that we get on with some
**** Possible New Speaker ****
sensible stuff in this bill. My Lords, I rise to talk on on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I rise to talk on on this set of amendments, and I feel as if I'm on my own because whilst
21:18
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
I agree absolutely with the need for Suds sustainable drainage systems and of course they've got a wonderful role for smaller style developments, ones and twos, when you're miles away from the mains in rural areas, they are obviously the way to go. And in fact, oftentimes they are the only way to go. But I cannot see for the life of me how promoting Suds and accepting these amendments is going to be proportionate when we're not just talking about connecting 10 or 15 homes, we're building 1.5 million.
We are never going to solve the housing problem by connecting 1.5 million homes to Suds. We've got to connect them to the mains. It's the only way forward. And. Yeah, but but I've got but I've got a very I'm concerned with, with listening to this because we're going to let the water undertakers, the sewage firms off the hook if we're, if we're not careful. Well, I've looked carefully at the amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My noble friend look, because it seems to me. Sorry. Carry on. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. Shouldn't interrupt. I'm sorry. So look, because this this whole So look, because this this whole bill is about speeding up development. We've got to get these development. We've got to get these homes going. And it seems to me that we're potentially having the that we're potentially having the perverse incentive that that we're going to fix the sewage, we're going to fix the sewage, we're going to allow the sewage treatment firms to have a veto over new firms to have a veto over new development.
If the sewage treatment works and the operators of the water undertakers are going of the water undertakers are going to be the tail that wags the dog, if they're saying, well, we haven't got enough capacity, therefore you got enough capacity, therefore you can't connect. No new homes will be built at all. And I'm really concerned about this. I went to the World Heritage Site at Iona in World Heritage Site at Iona in Scotland, and their sewage treatment works are at capacity. And so we've ended up with a And so we've ended up with a situation where a the, the visitor centre had was then forced to have centre had was then forced to have its own package system that drained straight through that.
The public areas making it worse. We had a situation in Norfolk where Anglian Water is saying their sewage treatment plants are at capacity and they cannot contemplate any new homes there. The blockers 40,000 new homes in the greater Norwich area, as well as other areas, are now at risk. So, so far, so much for speeding development. It's going to slow it down because this gives them a a perverse incentive not to invest in what they should be doing whilst taking the money from, from, from the business rates and so forth.
And in aggregate, we're going to end up with more polluting packaged systems rather than connecting. And that's no good for places like in my own area, Poringland, where there's a clay, where there's clay there, and the drainage is really poor. And this is really important because by by promoting a multiplicity of much smaller package systems, rather incentivising the main sewage providers to invest, we're going to avoid scale. And that's important because we need the larger, better structured sewage treatment works brought up to scratch, because it's only then that they address the phosphate problem.
And phosphate is very difficult to do in a packaged system because you've got harsh chemicals, you've got to wear face masks and gloves and all the health and safety paraphernalia. It's got to be kept very carefully. And this is where you get the economy of scale. And this is what we should be in, in encouraging. So and then there's also the other point about having if you're going to allow the sewage companies to say, well, we think we're full now, you can't have any more, and we end up with more schemes of the small package schemes.
There's the smell, they're unreliable, they're expensive to maintain. It's difficult to get them adopted. It's really difficult. So I'm really concerned that 198 and I'm not going to be put the black spot on entirely. But I think it needs to be improved because I think we're going to end up with a perverse situation where there's a lack of capacity. We're incentivising the sewage treatment companies, the water companies, to take it easy rather than go the extra mile. And this is not some theoretical risk in Heysham and refer to North Norfolk, now in Heysham.
Docking. Snettisham. Horsford. Brancaster. The entirety of the Greater Norwich area. Anglian water is holding up the delivery of tens of thousands of houses, and this is an infrastructure bill. And so the unintended consequence, well-meaning and I accept everything the noble Baroness has said about. Well, this is in the Water Act and I accept for smaller schemes this is it. But if we're going to have an infrastructure bill, we need to remove the excuses for the sewage treatment companies and the water undertakings to invest in that most basic infrastructure.
It's like we're going back to the days before Chamberlain in Birmingham, Bazalgette here on the Embankment in London. Look, we spent ages on the water bill and there is widespread concern about sewage discharge. But this sewage discharges are only going to be solved if we hold the water companies feet to the flames. We get them to invest. And just saying, oh well, it's a bit difficult. We're not going to invest and therefore you can't build houses and therefore you can't get the economy moving is a is a real problem.
So in summary, I think we need to make sure that we take into account that that Suds has a role for smaller schemes, but we should not allow the pressure to be taken off the large companies for the big schemes, the schemes that will deliver the homes this nation needs, get roofs over people's heads and let, because otherwise we're never going to meet the targets as it is in the times today or yesterday. Rather the the there's questions about whether we're going to get halfway to delivering the housing targets, let alone all the way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise briefly to speak to this group of amendments and applaud the
We are never going to solve the housing problem by connecting 1.5 million homes to Suds. We've got to connect them to the mains. It's the only way forward. And. Yeah, but but I've got but I've got a very I'm concerned with, with listening to this because we're going to let the water undertakers, the sewage firms off the hook if we're, if we're not careful. Well, I've looked carefully at the amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My noble friend look, because it seems to me. Sorry. Carry on. I.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I. Shouldn't interrupt. I'm sorry. So look, because this this whole So look, because this this whole bill is about speeding up development. We've got to get these development. We've got to get these homes going. And it seems to me that we're potentially having the that we're potentially having the perverse incentive that that we're going to fix the sewage, we're going to fix the sewage, we're going to allow the sewage treatment firms to have a veto over new firms to have a veto over new development.
If the sewage treatment works and the operators of the water undertakers are going of the water undertakers are going to be the tail that wags the dog, if they're saying, well, we haven't got enough capacity, therefore you got enough capacity, therefore you can't connect. No new homes will be built at all. And I'm really concerned about this. I went to the World Heritage Site at Iona in World Heritage Site at Iona in Scotland, and their sewage treatment works are at capacity. And so we've ended up with a And so we've ended up with a situation where a the, the visitor centre had was then forced to have centre had was then forced to have its own package system that drained straight through that.
The public areas making it worse. We had a situation in Norfolk where Anglian Water is saying their sewage treatment plants are at capacity and they cannot contemplate any new homes there. The blockers 40,000 new homes in the greater Norwich area, as well as other areas, are now at risk. So, so far, so much for speeding development. It's going to slow it down because this gives them a a perverse incentive not to invest in what they should be doing whilst taking the money from, from, from the business rates and so forth.
And in aggregate, we're going to end up with more polluting packaged systems rather than connecting. And that's no good for places like in my own area, Poringland, where there's a clay, where there's clay there, and the drainage is really poor. And this is really important because by by promoting a multiplicity of much smaller package systems, rather incentivising the main sewage providers to invest, we're going to avoid scale. And that's important because we need the larger, better structured sewage treatment works brought up to scratch, because it's only then that they address the phosphate problem.
And phosphate is very difficult to do in a packaged system because you've got harsh chemicals, you've got to wear face masks and gloves and all the health and safety paraphernalia. It's got to be kept very carefully. And this is where you get the economy of scale. And this is what we should be in, in encouraging. So and then there's also the other point about having if you're going to allow the sewage companies to say, well, we think we're full now, you can't have any more, and we end up with more schemes of the small package schemes.
There's the smell, they're unreliable, they're expensive to maintain. It's difficult to get them adopted. It's really difficult. So I'm really concerned that 198 and I'm not going to be put the black spot on entirely. But I think it needs to be improved because I think we're going to end up with a perverse situation where there's a lack of capacity. We're incentivising the sewage treatment companies, the water companies, to take it easy rather than go the extra mile. And this is not some theoretical risk in Heysham and refer to North Norfolk, now in Heysham.
Docking. Snettisham. Horsford. Brancaster. The entirety of the Greater Norwich area. Anglian water is holding up the delivery of tens of thousands of houses, and this is an infrastructure bill. And so the unintended consequence, well-meaning and I accept everything the noble Baroness has said about. Well, this is in the Water Act and I accept for smaller schemes this is it. But if we're going to have an infrastructure bill, we need to remove the excuses for the sewage treatment companies and the water undertakings to invest in that most basic infrastructure.
It's like we're going back to the days before Chamberlain in Birmingham, Bazalgette here on the Embankment in London. Look, we spent ages on the water bill and there is widespread concern about sewage discharge. But this sewage discharges are only going to be solved if we hold the water companies feet to the flames. We get them to invest. And just saying, oh well, it's a bit difficult. We're not going to invest and therefore you can't build houses and therefore you can't get the economy moving is a is a real problem.
So in summary, I think we need to make sure that we take into account that that Suds has a role for smaller schemes, but we should not allow the pressure to be taken off the large companies for the big schemes, the schemes that will deliver the homes this nation needs, get roofs over people's heads and let, because otherwise we're never going to meet the targets as it is in the times today or yesterday. Rather the the there's questions about whether we're going to get halfway to delivering the housing targets, let alone all the way.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise briefly to speak to this group of amendments and applaud the
21:25
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
group of amendments and applaud the noble Baroness McIntosh for her. Resilience in the face of some opposition from her own benches. And. This seeks to end the automatic right for developers to connect surface water from new homes to the public sewerage system, regardless of capacity, and instead provides a framework for the approval and adoption of the Sustainable drainage Systems. Amendment 108, also in her name, goes further by linking the right to connect compliance with the government's newly introduced National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems, creating a stronger incentive for developers to follow this guidance in advance of full implementation of schedule three of the Flood and Water Management Act, 2010, and I believe some of this was developed by the all-party group on for Flooded Communities, amongst others.
And we certainly support what she is attempting to do in these amendments. Managing surface water is a huge challenge. Such an irony, isn't it, that, you know, kind of we have lots and lots and lots of surface water and we have a problem and we don't have enough water. So, you know, protecting water quality, supporting biodiversity and reducing flood risk are really important priorities. And we see the merits in these amendments. Whilst they're not the only steps that are needed to achieve a fully resilient water system, they represent a constructive approach in improving, in particular, drainage management and encouraging developers to take responsibility
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for sustainable practices. My Lord I thank my noble friend for moving her amendments in this for moving her amendments in this group, and I know that the whole House respects her for her commitment on the issue of sustainable drainage, and I pay a sustainable drainage, and I pay a tribute to her for her persistence in raising this particular matter, because it is about time we made because it is about time we made some progress on it. Our water system, of course, has been under pressure.
When developments are built out and connected up, and my noble friend is right to raise it, so can the noble Baroness of Minister. Please take this opportunity to set out the government's ongoing work in delivering a sustainable future for delivering a sustainable future for our water systems. We would also be interested to hear what active steps the Department is taking to engage with the development sector, engage with the development sector, including small and medium sized developers, to ensure that the existing non-statutory standards
And we certainly support what she is attempting to do in these amendments. Managing surface water is a huge challenge. Such an irony, isn't it, that, you know, kind of we have lots and lots and lots of surface water and we have a problem and we don't have enough water. So, you know, protecting water quality, supporting biodiversity and reducing flood risk are really important priorities. And we see the merits in these amendments. Whilst they're not the only steps that are needed to achieve a fully resilient water system, they represent a constructive approach in improving, in particular, drainage management and encouraging developers to take responsibility
**** Possible New Speaker ****
for sustainable practices. My Lord I thank my noble friend for moving her amendments in this for moving her amendments in this group, and I know that the whole House respects her for her commitment on the issue of sustainable drainage, and I pay a sustainable drainage, and I pay a tribute to her for her persistence in raising this particular matter, because it is about time we made because it is about time we made some progress on it. Our water system, of course, has been under pressure.
When developments are built out and connected up, and my noble friend is right to raise it, so can the noble Baroness of Minister. Please take this opportunity to set out the government's ongoing work in delivering a sustainable future for delivering a sustainable future for our water systems. We would also be interested to hear what active steps the Department is taking to engage with the development sector, engage with the development sector, including small and medium sized developers, to ensure that the existing non-statutory standards
21:28
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
for sustainable drainage are being implemented. Now, my noble friends have mentioned 2010. I can beat that. I think it was in 1992. As Environment Minister, I was sure a revolutionary new system whereby the downpipes from our houses connected to a soakaway and a system of seepage pipes by a foot underground, where the water then slowly leaked back into the soil for big commercial power car parks. The sewage pipes were down a metre, so they weren't crushed. So those systems were in development then, and I said, this is jolly good idea, we should do it.
We all know Minister. It's not quite right time to do it yet. So I'd be interested in that particular instance to see if what the minister can say, what development work is going on for seepage systems and ordinary domestic houses. So we get millions of gallons of pure raindrops falling on our roof. We put it into the sewage system, and then the water companies spend millions of pounds taking out the clean water. Again. It must be a way to go in the near future.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh of Pickering for proposing these amendments and for proposing these amendments and for her persistence in these matters. I remember having long discussions in the course of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill with her on the same subject proper implementation, adoption and
We all know Minister. It's not quite right time to do it yet. So I'd be interested in that particular instance to see if what the minister can say, what development work is going on for seepage systems and ordinary domestic houses. So we get millions of gallons of pure raindrops falling on our roof. We put it into the sewage system, and then the water companies spend millions of pounds taking out the clean water. Again. It must be a way to go in the near future.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Lady McIntosh of Pickering for proposing these amendments and for proposing these amendments and for her persistence in these matters. I remember having long discussions in the course of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill with her on the same subject proper implementation, adoption and
21:29
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)
maintenance of sustainable drainage systems can significantly reduce the pressure on sewer networks from new developments by as much as 87%. This creates capacity for further development in areas where conventional drainage alone would be insufficient. There is growing need for Suds in more developments with designs that can withstand changing climate conditions. Broader water infrastructure goals, and contribute to addressing the water pollution challenges. Progress has already been made through the planning system to improve Suds delivery, and I'm afraid I just don't accept the noble Baronesses Coffey's assertion that its MHCLG that's been holding this up because the updated National Planning Policy Framework, published on the 12th of December, now requires Suds for all developments that have drainage applications.
Sewerage companies have the authority to reject connection requests if they believe the mode of construction or condition of the drain or sewer would prejudice their network or fail to meet reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to the sewer system. The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir John Cunliffe, has reviewed the regulatory framework for the water sector in England and Wales. Both the UK and Welsh governments are assessing the findings, including any potential impact on the right to connect any legislative changes to section 106 should take into account the findings of the independent Water Commission's report before moving forward.
The government remains strongly committed to requiring standardised Suds in new developments and increasing rainwater management strategies to mitigate flood risks and to adapt to climate change. In June 2025, the government released updated non-statutory national standards for Suds, which have been positively received by stakeholders as a very constructive development. Later this year, the government plans to consult on national planning policies, including those related to Flood risk and Suds. Additionally, a consultation will be launched on ending freehold estates, which will explore ways to reduce the reliance on private management arrangements for community assets such as Suds.
When we bring those national planning policies forward, I hope the noble Baroness will take part in the discussions because I know she has such a detailed knowledge of the subject. I'm sure she will be very helpful in the preparation of those national planning policies. For all these reasons, the government cannot accept amendments 197 and 198 and I hope the noble Baronesses
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reassured to withdraw them. My Lords, I am grateful to all
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in favour and for those who didn't. I'll take my colleague aside offline and teach colleague aside offline and teach him the error of his ways. Perhaps acquaint him with schedule three of acquaint him with schedule three of the 2010 Water Management Act. While the passage of this bill is While the passage of this bill is still going on, I would just say that as a newly elected MP, I was really surprised at two things.
One really surprised at two things. One was that we're not making new laws, we're amending existing laws. And then having passed that law, the then having passed that law, the second thing I was surprised at was that we're not implementing it. So I listened very carefully to what I listened very carefully to what the noble Lady Baroness Taylor said in response. And she's made the point for me. These are guidelines in the non-statutory the National Planning Policy Framework and in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning Policy Framework and in the National Standards for Suds. I have explained many times during the course of debating this bill that although the planning policy statements and the NPPF are policy statements and the NPPF are not statutory in themselves, they are part of a statutory planning framework and they must be taken framework and they must be taken into account as local plans are developed. So they're not they can't be statutory documents because they have to be amended very frequently, but they do sit within that statutory planning framework, and that's what makes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
them powerful. I'm grateful it's not me that the noble Lady has to convince. It's the insurance companies out there, and it's the likes of Ciwem there, and it's the likes of Ciwem who have to pick up the pieces when there is a combined sewage overflow. there is a combined sewage overflow. Also, we haven't plugged the gap of Also, we haven't plugged the gap of the highways run off as well. What I would like to do is reserve judgement at this time.
On bringing judgement at this time. On bringing back this amendment at Third Reading. So for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
leave to withdraw my amendment. To the withdrawn amendment by withdrawn amendment 198 Baroness
Sewerage companies have the authority to reject connection requests if they believe the mode of construction or condition of the drain or sewer would prejudice their network or fail to meet reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to the sewer system. The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir John Cunliffe, has reviewed the regulatory framework for the water sector in England and Wales. Both the UK and Welsh governments are assessing the findings, including any potential impact on the right to connect any legislative changes to section 106 should take into account the findings of the independent Water Commission's report before moving forward.
The government remains strongly committed to requiring standardised Suds in new developments and increasing rainwater management strategies to mitigate flood risks and to adapt to climate change. In June 2025, the government released updated non-statutory national standards for Suds, which have been positively received by stakeholders as a very constructive development. Later this year, the government plans to consult on national planning policies, including those related to Flood risk and Suds. Additionally, a consultation will be launched on ending freehold estates, which will explore ways to reduce the reliance on private management arrangements for community assets such as Suds.
When we bring those national planning policies forward, I hope the noble Baroness will take part in the discussions because I know she has such a detailed knowledge of the subject. I'm sure she will be very helpful in the preparation of those national planning policies. For all these reasons, the government cannot accept amendments 197 and 198 and I hope the noble Baronesses
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reassured to withdraw them. My Lords, I am grateful to all
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in favour and for those who didn't. I'll take my colleague aside offline and teach colleague aside offline and teach him the error of his ways. Perhaps acquaint him with schedule three of acquaint him with schedule three of the 2010 Water Management Act. While the passage of this bill is While the passage of this bill is still going on, I would just say that as a newly elected MP, I was really surprised at two things.
One really surprised at two things. One was that we're not making new laws, we're amending existing laws. And then having passed that law, the then having passed that law, the second thing I was surprised at was that we're not implementing it. So I listened very carefully to what I listened very carefully to what the noble Lady Baroness Taylor said in response. And she's made the point for me. These are guidelines in the non-statutory the National Planning Policy Framework and in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Planning Policy Framework and in the National Standards for Suds. I have explained many times during the course of debating this bill that although the planning policy statements and the NPPF are policy statements and the NPPF are not statutory in themselves, they are part of a statutory planning framework and they must be taken framework and they must be taken into account as local plans are developed. So they're not they can't be statutory documents because they have to be amended very frequently, but they do sit within that statutory planning framework, and that's what makes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
them powerful. I'm grateful it's not me that the noble Lady has to convince. It's the insurance companies out there, and it's the likes of Ciwem there, and it's the likes of Ciwem who have to pick up the pieces when there is a combined sewage overflow. there is a combined sewage overflow. Also, we haven't plugged the gap of Also, we haven't plugged the gap of the highways run off as well. What I would like to do is reserve judgement at this time.
On bringing judgement at this time. On bringing back this amendment at Third Reading. So for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
leave to withdraw my amendment. To the withdrawn amendment by withdrawn amendment 198 Baroness
21:33
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
withdrawn amendment 198 Baroness McIntosh not moved. Amendment 199
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Grender Lords. The. So this is amendment 199
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. So this is amendment 199 which I wish to move, and it is about heritage trees. And thank you about heritage trees. And thank you for everyone who's stayed for this particular moment. And a special thank you to Baroness Young of Old Scone who has who has worked on Scone who has who has worked on this issue for far longer than me. The existing mechanisms for tree
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Grender Lords. The. So this is amendment 199
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The. So this is amendment 199 which I wish to move, and it is about heritage trees. And thank you about heritage trees. And thank you for everyone who's stayed for this particular moment. And a special thank you to Baroness Young of Old Scone who has who has worked on Scone who has who has worked on this issue for far longer than me. The existing mechanisms for tree
21:34
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
The existing mechanisms for tree preservation prove consistently inadequate at the moment when confronted by development pressure. So the continual attrition of irreplaceable ecological and historic assets. We must introduce specific mandatory statutory safeguards. Amendment 199. And I'd also thank Baroness Bennett for signing as well. Achieves this by empowering local planning authorities to make heritage tree preservation orders. In respect of the heritage tree. A heritage tree is precisely defined as one listed by Natural England, based on its exceptional historic landscape, cultural or ecological importance, so these are exceptional.
They're not, you know, any old tree in somebody's back garden? Natural England is explicitly tasked with creating, publishing and maintaining this register of heritage trees in England. The measure guarantees that these assets are afforded all the protections of a standard TPO, but mandates significantly more rigorous enforcement and proactive care. The Secretary of State must make regulations specifying that breaches of an HTP incur additional or higher penalties. Crucially, the system moves beyond reactive enforcement. The regulations must specifically enable the responsible authority, the planning authority Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner or occupier to take specified reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree.
If the owner fails to comply within a reasonable time frame, the authority can execute the work itself and recover the reasonable cost. This ensures that the maintenance of these vital historic assets are kept for future generations, and the vital assets are financially enforceable and it removes uncertainty. Furthermore, transparency is mandatory. Owners must publicly advertise the tree status and penalties for harming it in the vicinity. The provision also encourages collaboration through Heritage Trees, Tree Partnership agreements between the responsible body and the owner concerning care and costs, so the mechanisms within this amendment my Lords deliver the focussed legal protection required for irreplaceable features.
Moving accountability from discretionary planning guidance to a mandatory framework of enforcement and proactive conservation of our vital heritage trees. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed articles 87 and insert the new clause. Heritage Preservation Orders as printed on Preservation Orders as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords, it would be exceptional.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I didn't support this amendment in that it takes the. Provisions of my Private Member's Bill and puts them into Member's Bill and puts them into the amendment. So I think I would be a bit two faced if I didn't stand to support it. And noble
They're not, you know, any old tree in somebody's back garden? Natural England is explicitly tasked with creating, publishing and maintaining this register of heritage trees in England. The measure guarantees that these assets are afforded all the protections of a standard TPO, but mandates significantly more rigorous enforcement and proactive care. The Secretary of State must make regulations specifying that breaches of an HTP incur additional or higher penalties. Crucially, the system moves beyond reactive enforcement. The regulations must specifically enable the responsible authority, the planning authority Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner or occupier to take specified reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree.
If the owner fails to comply within a reasonable time frame, the authority can execute the work itself and recover the reasonable cost. This ensures that the maintenance of these vital historic assets are kept for future generations, and the vital assets are financially enforceable and it removes uncertainty. Furthermore, transparency is mandatory. Owners must publicly advertise the tree status and penalties for harming it in the vicinity. The provision also encourages collaboration through Heritage Trees, Tree Partnership agreements between the responsible body and the owner concerning care and costs, so the mechanisms within this amendment my Lords deliver the focussed legal protection required for irreplaceable features.
Moving accountability from discretionary planning guidance to a mandatory framework of enforcement and proactive conservation of our vital heritage trees. I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed articles 87 and insert the new clause. Heritage Preservation Orders as printed on Preservation Orders as printed on the marshalled list. My Lords, it would be exceptional.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
If I didn't support this amendment in that it takes the. Provisions of my Private Member's Bill and puts them into Member's Bill and puts them into the amendment. So I think I would be a bit two faced if I didn't stand to support it. And noble
21:37
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
stand to support it. And noble Baroness Baroness Grender is laid out in very clearly just exactly
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what the issue is here. And this is an issue that is really important in the public domain. We saw the sort of outpourings
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We saw the sort of outpourings that happened at the Sycamore Gap. We see every year in the tree of the year competition, just how many people actually exert themselves to vote for their favourite heritage vote for their favourite heritage tree. We've now got the beginnings of a register of these trees are of a register of these trees are already in existence, and I already in existence, and I personally believe that. My personally believe that. My optimism, which was raised when the government commissioned the Tree Council to put forward a report on Council to put forward a report on what should happen, deserves a little bit of encouragement, little bit of encouragement, because as yet, we've not really had a very satisfactory response to had a very satisfactory response to the Tree Council research.
I think at the at committee stage, I summarised the government's position as being that they felt by position as being that they felt by saying that these trees were irreplaceable habitats, that was simply sufficient. It's clearly not simply sufficient. It's clearly not because they are increasingly being either damaged by. Demolition or by poor management. And so being called an irreplaceable habitats, not having any impact whatsoever. And and the second worry I had at committee stage was that the Tree Council had come forward with these recommendations.
It was clear that government wasn't planning to do very much as a result of them. So it would be good to hear from the Minister tonight that perhaps having reflected on this, there has been a change of heart. I look forward to the Minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords having attached my name also to this amendment for reasons I'll get to in a second. It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Grender and particularly the noble lady Baroness Young, who has been our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what the issue is here. And this is an issue that is really important in the public domain. We saw the sort of outpourings
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We saw the sort of outpourings that happened at the Sycamore Gap. We see every year in the tree of the year competition, just how many people actually exert themselves to vote for their favourite heritage vote for their favourite heritage tree. We've now got the beginnings of a register of these trees are of a register of these trees are already in existence, and I already in existence, and I personally believe that. My personally believe that. My optimism, which was raised when the government commissioned the Tree Council to put forward a report on Council to put forward a report on what should happen, deserves a little bit of encouragement, little bit of encouragement, because as yet, we've not really had a very satisfactory response to had a very satisfactory response to the Tree Council research.
I think at the at committee stage, I summarised the government's position as being that they felt by position as being that they felt by saying that these trees were irreplaceable habitats, that was simply sufficient. It's clearly not simply sufficient. It's clearly not because they are increasingly being either damaged by. Demolition or by poor management. And so being called an irreplaceable habitats, not having any impact whatsoever. And and the second worry I had at committee stage was that the Tree Council had come forward with these recommendations.
It was clear that government wasn't planning to do very much as a result of them. So it would be good to hear from the Minister tonight that perhaps having reflected on this, there has been a change of heart. I look forward to the Minister's response.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords having attached my name also to this amendment for reasons I'll get to in a second. It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Grender and particularly the noble lady Baroness Young, who has been our
21:39
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
Baroness Young, who has been our champion in this space. I'm just going to speak about two groups of trees in Sheffield. Now, members of your Lordships House may remember the great Sheffield tree controversy and all of the struggles that the whole of the city went to to defend its street trees. Two of groups of those would, I think, have been covered by a Heritage Tree Preservation order. One was about 40 trees on Western Road, which had been planted in 1919 as a living memorial for the soldiers who'd been killed in the First World War.
From that community, the council planned to cut them down. There were paintings by artists underneath the trees. There was a huge march in World War One style uniforms from the trees down to the to the the town hall. There was a huge campaign that demonstrated just how important these trees were to the community, and they were saved. Nearly all of them were saved on the other side of the city, in a much more deprived area. There were two cherry trees which were planted to commemorate two brothers who'd been killed in the Second World War.
They were just cut down and people were deeply shocked. And I think we've talked a lot in your Lordships House through this bill about how nature is terribly important to people's health and wellbeing. But here we're talking about individual trees that communities have an individual relationship with, and they desperately need that protection. They're part of their history, they're part of their future. And at the moment, we don't have ways of protecting them except for communities going to the kind of extraordinary efforts that the people in Sheffield had to go to to save those trees that they did manage to save.
I'll just make one other point that Poland, for example, has a green monument system which actually marks tens of thousands of trees across Poland and Romania, has a similar scheme. Britain is supposed to be really keen on nature and really keen on heritage, and look how far behind
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we are. My little one is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My little one is. Just to support this amendment 199 because I think it is important
From that community, the council planned to cut them down. There were paintings by artists underneath the trees. There was a huge march in World War One style uniforms from the trees down to the to the the town hall. There was a huge campaign that demonstrated just how important these trees were to the community, and they were saved. Nearly all of them were saved on the other side of the city, in a much more deprived area. There were two cherry trees which were planted to commemorate two brothers who'd been killed in the Second World War.
They were just cut down and people were deeply shocked. And I think we've talked a lot in your Lordships House through this bill about how nature is terribly important to people's health and wellbeing. But here we're talking about individual trees that communities have an individual relationship with, and they desperately need that protection. They're part of their history, they're part of their future. And at the moment, we don't have ways of protecting them except for communities going to the kind of extraordinary efforts that the people in Sheffield had to go to to save those trees that they did manage to save.
I'll just make one other point that Poland, for example, has a green monument system which actually marks tens of thousands of trees across Poland and Romania, has a similar scheme. Britain is supposed to be really keen on nature and really keen on heritage, and look how far behind
**** Possible New Speaker ****
we are. My little one is.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My little one is. Just to support this amendment 199 because I think it is important
21:41
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Fuller (Conservative)
that we protect our historic trees and we recognise them. And I'm thinking not just of the sort of the highway and byway trees, but there are some really special champion oaks in South Norfolk, where I was the leader of a council, and we took steps to recognise those and actually bring them into the local plan and give them special designations. And and they formed the basis of the strategic gaps between settlements, which isn't just a good thing for the landscape. It also maintains that spirit of community.
But I'm thinking in particular of the Kett's Oak, which is a champion Oak, said to be over 500 years old, might be more sat there on the B11 72 between Norwich and Windham, and it was the site of the Kett's rebellion, where Robert Kett marched 16,000 people to Mousehold Hill in Norwich. Having had a petition of 29 demands. And I just hope that and I expect the government to want to knock this one back. But in the context of that sort of historical nature as well as landscape importance, some of the Kett's demands were to limit the power of the gentry, to prevent the overuse of communal resources and other things.
Now, it didn't do me any good. Kett was executed on the 7th of December, 1549, but it's part of the lexicon. But these important trees are more than just the. And I'm I'm conscious that my noble friend Lady McIntosh is going to take me outside and duff me up afterwards. I hope I don't have the same fate as befell Robert, but my serious point is, having a National register of important trees isn't just important for the biological biodiversity and all that sort of thing.
It is part of our history, it's part of our culture, and there are things to be celebrated. And I certainly warmly endorse and support amendment 199 with my personal knowledge of the case. But another other, noble Lords will have other similar stories from their own areas. And I suppose the salutary lesson is that when that Sycamore Gap tree was felled quite terribly in Northumberland last year, there was a national outpouring and, and I think it was 99 attempts to capture that sense of pride and purpose.
And it has my full support.
But I'm thinking in particular of the Kett's Oak, which is a champion Oak, said to be over 500 years old, might be more sat there on the B11 72 between Norwich and Windham, and it was the site of the Kett's rebellion, where Robert Kett marched 16,000 people to Mousehold Hill in Norwich. Having had a petition of 29 demands. And I just hope that and I expect the government to want to knock this one back. But in the context of that sort of historical nature as well as landscape importance, some of the Kett's demands were to limit the power of the gentry, to prevent the overuse of communal resources and other things.
Now, it didn't do me any good. Kett was executed on the 7th of December, 1549, but it's part of the lexicon. But these important trees are more than just the. And I'm I'm conscious that my noble friend Lady McIntosh is going to take me outside and duff me up afterwards. I hope I don't have the same fate as befell Robert, but my serious point is, having a National register of important trees isn't just important for the biological biodiversity and all that sort of thing.
It is part of our history, it's part of our culture, and there are things to be celebrated. And I certainly warmly endorse and support amendment 199 with my personal knowledge of the case. But another other, noble Lords will have other similar stories from their own areas. And I suppose the salutary lesson is that when that Sycamore Gap tree was felled quite terribly in Northumberland last year, there was a national outpouring and, and I think it was 99 attempts to capture that sense of pride and purpose.
And it has my full support.
21:44
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
Thank you. appreciation of our heritage trees affording all you and Perthshire is estimated to be between 2300 years old, and oaks on the Blenheim estate that are estimated to be over 1000 years old. And of course, I. Sycamore gap tree, which I drove past or was driven past the day before it was cut down, was over 100 years old and but whilst our relatively young tree by comparison I think was probably the most famous iconic tree we've got, and it was loved by millions.
Now, whether there be ancient yews or oaks that have stood in Britain for hundreds, if not thousands of years, our heritage trees are a link to our past. That's why we have robust tree protection laws. And whilst we are committed to maintaining those protections, can the noble Baroness the Minister please confirm that the existing protections for trees will not be swept away inappropriately without due consideration? Where developments are considered, because it would be unacceptable to have an EDP which meets the overall improvement test, that it necessitates cutting down a heritage or some heritage trees.
And I think we'd all agree that would be unacceptable. So could the noble Baroness the Minister please set out the government's view and the current penalties for breaches of tree protection orders? And does the government feel that these remain appropriate, or do ministers have plans to review them or introduce new new regulations? New laws?
Now, whether there be ancient yews or oaks that have stood in Britain for hundreds, if not thousands of years, our heritage trees are a link to our past. That's why we have robust tree protection laws. And whilst we are committed to maintaining those protections, can the noble Baroness the Minister please confirm that the existing protections for trees will not be swept away inappropriately without due consideration? Where developments are considered, because it would be unacceptable to have an EDP which meets the overall improvement test, that it necessitates cutting down a heritage or some heritage trees.
And I think we'd all agree that would be unacceptable. So could the noble Baroness the Minister please set out the government's view and the current penalties for breaches of tree protection orders? And does the government feel that these remain appropriate, or do ministers have plans to review them or introduce new new regulations? New laws?
21:45
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
Thank you, noble Lords, for the for the debate and for the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. Obviously, trees and the natural environment is very important to all of us, and especially the government. And trees offer profound environmental and societal benefits. They're instrumental in our efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. They support human wellbeing and provide important habitats for wildlife. We have considered the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, which seeks to establish a new category of heritage trees those of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecological significance and give them additional statutory protection.
As mentioned in previous debates, the Tree Preservation Order system remains a vital mechanism for safeguarding trees and woodlands in England. Local authorities are already expected to consider the historic, cultural and ecological value of trees when making such orders. Local planning authorities are required to notify relevant parties when an order is made, and they are empowered to encourage good tree management, particularly in the context of making planning decisions. Enforcement powers are available to local officers, and it is a criminal offence to cut down, uproot, wilfully damage, or to top or lop so as to destroy protected tree without written consent from the authority.
We also recognise the value of trees and planning policy as a core component of natural capital. It is our position that trees should be incorporated into new developments wherever possible, and that existing trees should be retained. Furthermore, development that would result in the loss of deterioration of ancient woodland or ancient or veteran trees should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and suitable compensation strategy exists. Given these existing provisions, the proposed amendment does not, in our view, offer sufficient additional protection to justify its implementation.
The creation of a new category of heritage trees risks introducing confusion and placing an additional burden on both Natural England and local authorities without delivering commensurate benefits. In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw our amendment. I'm going. To do. The next.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The next. My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response. I will not be
As mentioned in previous debates, the Tree Preservation Order system remains a vital mechanism for safeguarding trees and woodlands in England. Local authorities are already expected to consider the historic, cultural and ecological value of trees when making such orders. Local planning authorities are required to notify relevant parties when an order is made, and they are empowered to encourage good tree management, particularly in the context of making planning decisions. Enforcement powers are available to local officers, and it is a criminal offence to cut down, uproot, wilfully damage, or to top or lop so as to destroy protected tree without written consent from the authority.
We also recognise the value of trees and planning policy as a core component of natural capital. It is our position that trees should be incorporated into new developments wherever possible, and that existing trees should be retained. Furthermore, development that would result in the loss of deterioration of ancient woodland or ancient or veteran trees should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and suitable compensation strategy exists. Given these existing provisions, the proposed amendment does not, in our view, offer sufficient additional protection to justify its implementation.
The creation of a new category of heritage trees risks introducing confusion and placing an additional burden on both Natural England and local authorities without delivering commensurate benefits. In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
withdraw our amendment. I'm going. To do. The next.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The next. My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response. I will not be
21:48
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
for the response. I will not be pressing to test the opinion of the House, because I have a sense of clarity as to what the outcome of that will be right now. However, I do feel that there is a need to push for greater rigour and content of this within a bill of this nature, and will be looking to see if there is further work that we can do to perhaps get it into a nature bill in the future.
But that said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it Lordships amendment withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 200 Lord Lansley not moved. Amendment 201
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Rogan Lord Blencathra not moved. So I think. We now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now. Come to amendment 202 Lord Offord I've got oh, sorry. It's not
But that said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it Lordships amendment withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 200 Lord Lansley not moved. Amendment 201
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Rogan Lord Blencathra not moved. So I think. We now.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We now. Come to amendment 202 Lord Offord I've got oh, sorry. It's not
21:49
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Offord I've got oh, sorry. It's not it's Baroness Bloomfield. OK. I'm grateful. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 202 in my to speak to amendment 202 in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. It addresses the pressing need to streamline and speed up the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
delivery of new nuclear power stations. Currently burdened by heavy handed regulations. It aims to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It aims to. Correct this and ensure that our. Planning system facilitates, rather than fetters, the delivery of affordable, accessible and secure affordable, accessible and secure energy for the. British people. Energy is the fundamental deciding factor in the success of an economy,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
factor in the success of an economy, and that has never been more true than it is today. Energy is. Indeed now the currency of AI.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Indeed now the currency of AI. Progress is decided by whether innovation can be supported by a cheap and accessible supply of cheap and accessible supply of energy. And in the present day, with round the clock data centres, AI start ups and an economy that runs non-stop, that is all the more important. If we want to be a growing and prosperous economy, we cannot resign ourselves to be a cannot resign ourselves to be a nation that accepts intermittent and expensive energy. Unfortunately, we and I include successive we and I include successive governments in that so far have done just that.
Our international counterparts have been busy reducing their costs, securing their domestic energy supply. At the same time, we've been busily engaged in a somewhat blinkered and self-defeating ideological pursuit. The result is that our costs are The result is that our costs are now some of the highest in the world and are shackled. Planning system doesn't let us correct this. system doesn't let us correct this. This is not an attempt to play politics. The empirical evidence proves the point. Wind and solar energy now account for nearly 40% of our national grid generation.
We have commandeered fields, fields and tarnished the countryside to reach this outcome. The result? Even if wholesale prices halve in the next five years, electricity prices will be 20% higher. The policy costs of this government initiatives add around £300 to the average annual bill, and cost companies twice as much to deliver it as it does in France. This is not the result of an efficient energy system. My Lords, the obvious solution to this is to build more nuclear power plants. They may have large upfront costs, yes, but that is offset by relatively small variable costs.
There are potential economies of scale and are infinitely more productive than the source of energy we currently rely on. Once built, they are entirely domestic and provide a secure and sovereign energy source. Replace wind with nuclear power and you have a source of energy that uses up 3000 times less land. That is an environmental change that will have a noticeable effect on the people of this country. The problem lies in the fact that we haven't taken the necessary steps to realise nuclear's benefits.
The last nuclear power station to come online did so 30 years ago, and of the five in use, four are scheduled to close by the end of the decade. As it currently stands, Hinkley Point C, currently under construction, is set to become the most expensive power station in human history at an exorbitant 44,000,000,000 in 2024 terms. It uses the same EPR as counterparts like France and Finland, and yet they pay 27% less per kilowatt hour than we do. I spent yesterday in Finland at the Olkiluoto three, which is the first nuclear power station to have been opened in 15 years.
It began electricity production in 2023, is estimated to last for another 100 years, and is the third most powerful nuclear power generator in the world. It produces almost a third of all electricity in Finland, regardless of the weather and regardless of the time of day. And it's the same design as Hinkley Point and that proposed resizable sea. So we should learn from the engineering challenges faced by the Finns. The environmental lobby has undertaken a two pronged attack on energy security, the first of which is the endless sprawl of wind and solar farms, the second being the endless stream of consultations, challenges and appeals that are now a given with every new planning application.
This amendment goes a long way to answering that problem, putting progress over paperwork and allowing vital national infrastructure to be built. If we seriously want lower Bills, a dynamic and growing economy, and a Britain that attracts investment, then we must be brave in bypassing the self-sabotaging legislation which holds us back. This amendment does not dangerously free the market. It is a balanced approach that gives the Secretary of State the choice, and it is a choice of whether the benefits of nuclear power must outweigh discretionary environmental concerns.
It would allow us to achieve energy security, embrace the new technologies that come with industrial development, enable the growth that this government has. So for a long time
**** Possible New Speaker ****
promised. Noble Lady wish to move her
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady wish to move her amendment. Yes. OK. Amendment proposed after clause 87. Insert new clause as printed on the
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Offord I've got oh, sorry. It's not it's Baroness Bloomfield. OK. I'm grateful. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 202 in my to speak to amendment 202 in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. It addresses the pressing need to streamline and speed up the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
delivery of new nuclear power stations. Currently burdened by heavy handed regulations. It aims to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It aims to. Correct this and ensure that our. Planning system facilitates, rather than fetters, the delivery of affordable, accessible and secure affordable, accessible and secure energy for the. British people. Energy is the fundamental deciding factor in the success of an economy,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
factor in the success of an economy, and that has never been more true than it is today. Energy is. Indeed now the currency of AI.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Indeed now the currency of AI. Progress is decided by whether innovation can be supported by a cheap and accessible supply of cheap and accessible supply of energy. And in the present day, with round the clock data centres, AI start ups and an economy that runs non-stop, that is all the more important. If we want to be a growing and prosperous economy, we cannot resign ourselves to be a cannot resign ourselves to be a nation that accepts intermittent and expensive energy. Unfortunately, we and I include successive we and I include successive governments in that so far have done just that.
Our international counterparts have been busy reducing their costs, securing their domestic energy supply. At the same time, we've been busily engaged in a somewhat blinkered and self-defeating ideological pursuit. The result is that our costs are The result is that our costs are now some of the highest in the world and are shackled. Planning system doesn't let us correct this. system doesn't let us correct this. This is not an attempt to play politics. The empirical evidence proves the point. Wind and solar energy now account for nearly 40% of our national grid generation.
We have commandeered fields, fields and tarnished the countryside to reach this outcome. The result? Even if wholesale prices halve in the next five years, electricity prices will be 20% higher. The policy costs of this government initiatives add around £300 to the average annual bill, and cost companies twice as much to deliver it as it does in France. This is not the result of an efficient energy system. My Lords, the obvious solution to this is to build more nuclear power plants. They may have large upfront costs, yes, but that is offset by relatively small variable costs.
There are potential economies of scale and are infinitely more productive than the source of energy we currently rely on. Once built, they are entirely domestic and provide a secure and sovereign energy source. Replace wind with nuclear power and you have a source of energy that uses up 3000 times less land. That is an environmental change that will have a noticeable effect on the people of this country. The problem lies in the fact that we haven't taken the necessary steps to realise nuclear's benefits.
The last nuclear power station to come online did so 30 years ago, and of the five in use, four are scheduled to close by the end of the decade. As it currently stands, Hinkley Point C, currently under construction, is set to become the most expensive power station in human history at an exorbitant 44,000,000,000 in 2024 terms. It uses the same EPR as counterparts like France and Finland, and yet they pay 27% less per kilowatt hour than we do. I spent yesterday in Finland at the Olkiluoto three, which is the first nuclear power station to have been opened in 15 years.
It began electricity production in 2023, is estimated to last for another 100 years, and is the third most powerful nuclear power generator in the world. It produces almost a third of all electricity in Finland, regardless of the weather and regardless of the time of day. And it's the same design as Hinkley Point and that proposed resizable sea. So we should learn from the engineering challenges faced by the Finns. The environmental lobby has undertaken a two pronged attack on energy security, the first of which is the endless sprawl of wind and solar farms, the second being the endless stream of consultations, challenges and appeals that are now a given with every new planning application.
This amendment goes a long way to answering that problem, putting progress over paperwork and allowing vital national infrastructure to be built. If we seriously want lower Bills, a dynamic and growing economy, and a Britain that attracts investment, then we must be brave in bypassing the self-sabotaging legislation which holds us back. This amendment does not dangerously free the market. It is a balanced approach that gives the Secretary of State the choice, and it is a choice of whether the benefits of nuclear power must outweigh discretionary environmental concerns.
It would allow us to achieve energy security, embrace the new technologies that come with industrial development, enable the growth that this government has. So for a long time
**** Possible New Speaker ****
promised. Noble Lady wish to move her
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Noble Lady wish to move her amendment. Yes. OK. Amendment proposed after clause 87. Insert new clause as printed on the
21:54
Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. Amendments 207.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
220 and 230, which are all linked. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Roborough for supporting Lord Lord Roborough for supporting these amendments, and I'm also very grateful for all of the constructive engagement I've had with the Minister and her teams in committee and reports. I'm sorry that the noble Baroness Lady Altmann can't be here this evening and wish her a speedy recovery. My Lords, I did reflect upon the committee debate, which highlighted the contentious nature of these amendments.
And of course, noble Lords are concerned about rolling back protections for nature, for infrastructure build and of course, the delays we have seen to large infrastructure in the UK are a multifaceted problem, but we can't get away or escape from the fact that poor interpretation of environmental regulations are causing excessive costs and multiyear delays to many of our large infrastructure projects. The evidence here is clear. I won't go through the examples again that I cited at committee, but the root cause of of delays to many of our offshore winds, nuclear and other programs that I cited and excessive cost come down to an overzealous interpretation of the habitat regulations, which, ironically, are causing long delays to much of our net zero infrastructure and much else besides, and actually impacting our national security, because energy security is national security.
So my amendments offer a way through this whilst maintaining protections for nature by attempting to take the regulations back to their original intent, by reversing case law and clarifying interpretation of existing law. Now, these changes would move the dial significantly by ensuring that regulators are guided towards a more sensible and proportionate interpretation of the regulations and compensation, streamlining the programme for getting infrastructure through the system. Now, finally, my Lords, these points relate to a substantive proposal that the Minister has offered which relates to these amendments.
And so I look forward to hearing their proposal in detail when she sums up.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank. Excellent question. My Lords. I should be clear at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I should be clear at the outset that the amendments in this grouping seeking to substantively amend the Habitats Regulations beyond the context of Regulations beyond the context of EDP and the Nature Restoration Fund and beyond the current focus of this bill, I am aware these
Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
marshalled list. Amendments 207.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
220 and 230, which are all linked. I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Roborough for supporting Lord Lord Roborough for supporting these amendments, and I'm also very grateful for all of the constructive engagement I've had with the Minister and her teams in committee and reports. I'm sorry that the noble Baroness Lady Altmann can't be here this evening and wish her a speedy recovery. My Lords, I did reflect upon the committee debate, which highlighted the contentious nature of these amendments.
And of course, noble Lords are concerned about rolling back protections for nature, for infrastructure build and of course, the delays we have seen to large infrastructure in the UK are a multifaceted problem, but we can't get away or escape from the fact that poor interpretation of environmental regulations are causing excessive costs and multiyear delays to many of our large infrastructure projects. The evidence here is clear. I won't go through the examples again that I cited at committee, but the root cause of of delays to many of our offshore winds, nuclear and other programs that I cited and excessive cost come down to an overzealous interpretation of the habitat regulations, which, ironically, are causing long delays to much of our net zero infrastructure and much else besides, and actually impacting our national security, because energy security is national security.
So my amendments offer a way through this whilst maintaining protections for nature by attempting to take the regulations back to their original intent, by reversing case law and clarifying interpretation of existing law. Now, these changes would move the dial significantly by ensuring that regulators are guided towards a more sensible and proportionate interpretation of the regulations and compensation, streamlining the programme for getting infrastructure through the system. Now, finally, my Lords, these points relate to a substantive proposal that the Minister has offered which relates to these amendments.
And so I look forward to hearing their proposal in detail when she sums up.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank. Excellent question. My Lords. I should be clear at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I should be clear at the outset that the amendments in this grouping seeking to substantively amend the Habitats Regulations beyond the context of Regulations beyond the context of EDP and the Nature Restoration Fund and beyond the current focus of this bill, I am aware these
21:56
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)
this bill, I am aware these amendments and the desire to make changes to the wider system of habitats regulation, stems in part from a concern that the NRF will not deliver for infrastructure projects. And I want to be very clear that that is not the case. We are all well aware of cases where vital infrastructure has been held up by specific environmental issues. We are currently identifying opportunities where EDP and the NRF can have the greatest impact on infrastructure delivery, particularly addressing common challenges that are currently difficult for developers to resolve alone.
My Lords, I should stress that the government is already taking action and we believe that habitats Regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately with decisions based on the best available scientific evidence. The government is working closely with stakeholders to improve the functioning of the Habitats Regulations, including acting on the recommendations of the review and the Post-implementation review of the habitat regulations. We know there are particular issues with the delivery of suitable environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind projects.
The consultation, which closed in September, covered proposed reforms to deliver a more flexible approach. To this. We will make clear in guidance that only relevant information needs to be considered in reaching conclusions on the risks to a protected site. The updated guidance will also make clear that small effects, which do not have any prospect of risking harm to a protected site, can and should be screened out. And finally, we will take the opportunity to more clearly set out where there is already flexibility in law in considering appropriate compensatory measures.
Under regulation 68 of the Habitats Regulations. Should guidance not be sufficient to make clear how regulation should be applied? We may consider whether legislative change is needed in careful consultation with developers, planners, ecologists and other relevant stakeholders. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will withdraw these amendments. Turning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to amendment 202. My Lords, before the noble lady,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, before the noble lady, the Minister sits down. I very much welcome her commitment to address the points raised in the amendment the points raised in the amendment through guidance and recognising that legislation will be required. Look forward to working with the Look forward to working with the Minister and her team on this, but I would stress the urgency of bringing forward guidance quickly bringing forward guidance quickly in this area due to the the delays we're seeing. So can the Minister offer any more information on on offer any more information on on timescales when that guidance will be issued and released?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be issued and released? I understand the point the noble Lord is making. Perhaps I could take that back and discuss with the take that back and discuss with the teams in both Defra and my own department, and write to him on that subject if that would be helpful. Because, you know, I'm helpful. Because, you know, I'm very loath to make a time commitment from the despatch box without doing that. First, turning without doing that. First, turning to amendment 202, as previously noted, I share the noble Lord Lord Offord and the noble Baroness Lady Offord and the noble Baroness Lady Bloomfield was ambition to support new nuclear development, which will be critical for economic growth and be critical for economic growth and achieving our clean energy mission.
However, providing the Secretary of State the ability to completely State the ability to completely exempt nuclear power stations producing more than 500MW from requirements in respect of the habitat regulations, environmental impact assessments and any future environmental delivery plans will create uncertainty for developers and erode public support for such projects. These are important tools for making sure that the environmental impacts of projects are considered, and the environmental protections they contain don't only relate to nature, but also to the broader community. Impacts.
This blunt approach to disregarding these obligations would put decision makers at a disadvantage, and prevent developers from taking important steps to address the environmental impact of the development. I do agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. We need to do more to reform the planning system, to accelerate nuclear development in this country, and we're in the final stages of designating new national policy statement for nuclear Energy Generation seven that will provide a robust and flexible framework for new nuclear developers seeking development consent alongside the overarching Energy National Policy Statement, one will provide the Secretary of State with some discretion when considering habitats, regulations and the Environmental Impact assessment during decision making by defining low carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, as a critical national priority.
We are also awaiting the final recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce. I hope, following my explanation that the noble Lord Lord Offord of Garvel and the noble Lady Baroness Bloomfield will feel able to withdraw their amendment. Yes, my Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response. And although I don't entirely agree with her arguments, I've made my case as well as I can, and I don't propose to detain the House any longer, given the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lateness of the hour. So I beg leave to withdraw this amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure? The member withdrawn. Amendment by The member withdrawn. Amendment by leave. Withdrawn. Amendment 203. Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 203A Baroness Coffey not moved 23B and C Lord Howard of Rising not moved. And in clause 88 Lord Roborough 204 not moved. And in clause 89 205 Lord Roborough not moved, and in clause 89 206 Earl Russell not moved, and in clause 9207 Lord Ravensdale not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
9207 Lord Ravensdale not moved. My Lords. I beg to move that further consideration on report is now adjourned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that further consideration on report be now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion say, content to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion say, content to the contrary. Not content. The. My Lords beg to move the House. Do now adjourn.
My Lords, I should stress that the government is already taking action and we believe that habitats Regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately with decisions based on the best available scientific evidence. The government is working closely with stakeholders to improve the functioning of the Habitats Regulations, including acting on the recommendations of the review and the Post-implementation review of the habitat regulations. We know there are particular issues with the delivery of suitable environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind projects.
The consultation, which closed in September, covered proposed reforms to deliver a more flexible approach. To this. We will make clear in guidance that only relevant information needs to be considered in reaching conclusions on the risks to a protected site. The updated guidance will also make clear that small effects, which do not have any prospect of risking harm to a protected site, can and should be screened out. And finally, we will take the opportunity to more clearly set out where there is already flexibility in law in considering appropriate compensatory measures.
Under regulation 68 of the Habitats Regulations. Should guidance not be sufficient to make clear how regulation should be applied? We may consider whether legislative change is needed in careful consultation with developers, planners, ecologists and other relevant stakeholders. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will withdraw these amendments. Turning
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to amendment 202. My Lords, before the noble lady,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, before the noble lady, the Minister sits down. I very much welcome her commitment to address the points raised in the amendment the points raised in the amendment through guidance and recognising that legislation will be required. Look forward to working with the Look forward to working with the Minister and her team on this, but I would stress the urgency of bringing forward guidance quickly bringing forward guidance quickly in this area due to the the delays we're seeing. So can the Minister offer any more information on on offer any more information on on timescales when that guidance will be issued and released?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be issued and released? I understand the point the noble Lord is making. Perhaps I could take that back and discuss with the take that back and discuss with the teams in both Defra and my own department, and write to him on that subject if that would be helpful. Because, you know, I'm helpful. Because, you know, I'm very loath to make a time commitment from the despatch box without doing that. First, turning without doing that. First, turning to amendment 202, as previously noted, I share the noble Lord Lord Offord and the noble Baroness Lady Offord and the noble Baroness Lady Bloomfield was ambition to support new nuclear development, which will be critical for economic growth and be critical for economic growth and achieving our clean energy mission.
However, providing the Secretary of State the ability to completely State the ability to completely exempt nuclear power stations producing more than 500MW from requirements in respect of the habitat regulations, environmental impact assessments and any future environmental delivery plans will create uncertainty for developers and erode public support for such projects. These are important tools for making sure that the environmental impacts of projects are considered, and the environmental protections they contain don't only relate to nature, but also to the broader community. Impacts.
This blunt approach to disregarding these obligations would put decision makers at a disadvantage, and prevent developers from taking important steps to address the environmental impact of the development. I do agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. We need to do more to reform the planning system, to accelerate nuclear development in this country, and we're in the final stages of designating new national policy statement for nuclear Energy Generation seven that will provide a robust and flexible framework for new nuclear developers seeking development consent alongside the overarching Energy National Policy Statement, one will provide the Secretary of State with some discretion when considering habitats, regulations and the Environmental Impact assessment during decision making by defining low carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, as a critical national priority.
We are also awaiting the final recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce. I hope, following my explanation that the noble Lord Lord Offord of Garvel and the noble Lady Baroness Bloomfield will feel able to withdraw their amendment. Yes, my Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response. And although I don't entirely agree with her arguments, I've made my case as well as I can, and I don't propose to detain the House any longer, given the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
lateness of the hour. So I beg leave to withdraw this amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure? The member withdrawn. Amendment by The member withdrawn. Amendment by leave. Withdrawn. Amendment 203. Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 203A Baroness Coffey not moved 23B and C Lord Howard of Rising not moved. And in clause 88 Lord Roborough 204 not moved. And in clause 89 205 Lord Roborough not moved, and in clause 89 206 Earl Russell not moved, and in clause 9207 Lord Ravensdale not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
9207 Lord Ravensdale not moved. My Lords. I beg to move that further consideration on report is now adjourned.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that further consideration on report be now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion say, content to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion say, content to the contrary. Not content. The. My Lords beg to move the House. Do now adjourn.