Lords Chamber
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