Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Lord Lansley

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to speak to all the amendments in this group. I want to speak to Amendment 200 and make just one remark about Amendment 194.

I am not persuaded by Amendment 194. Our day- by-day experience of working with organisations which provide environmental impact assessments and environmental outcome reports, and that have all the expertise we might need in this context, is not to be found exclusively in public bodies, so I would not support this amendment.

Turning to Amendment 200, in Committee we had a short debate about the relationship between Natural England and the making of development plans. Clearly, as we noted then, Natural England has to have regard to these. The sooner Natural England can be aware of the potential requirement for environmental delivery plans, the better. They do not necessarily start at that stage, but they can certainly engage in programming for their activity. The pressure on them is clearly going to be considerable. My Amendment 200 is about local authorities having a duty to tell Natural England when they have potential sites for development. I interpret this as being at Regulation 19 stage. If they are coming forward with the development sites they are proposing for consultation, they should tell Natural England. Natural England can then factor into the thinking about environmental development plans what might emerge, typically a year or more after that point, as the adoption of a development plan. It gives them access and time.

I completely understand if the Minister says that this is not necessary because they can already do this. We are talking about statutory processes and local planning authorities who are so pressed that they will not do what they are not required to do. In order to make this system work, a Regulation 19 requirement to notify Natural England to inform the process of EDP making would be a helpful addition.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made a very important, practical point.

I shall speak chiefly against government Amendment 68. I shall also briefly reflect on Amendment 194, following the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about these powers being delegated to another person. I hope the Minister can reassure me that this is not in the Government’s mind. I hope she can guarantee that there will not be the outsourcing to giant multinational companies that are expert in bidding for contracts but terrible at delivering on them that we have seen in so many areas of government, and that we will not see another outsourcing disaster follow the many other outsourcing disasters. When we think about what has happened, for example, with building control, it is really important that oversight is not outsourced to the people who then end up marking their own homework.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle and Lord Lansley

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, briefly, I welcome Commons Amendment 1. It is very pleasing to see this Government, in contrast to the last Government, acknowledging that we have nations on these islands which have devolved powers that need to be respected. Indeed, when we are talking about the standards here, hopefully there is an understanding that devolution can also mean divergence in terms of democratic choices. Within the sometimes unfortunate limits of the internal market Act, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be able to lift to higher standards if that is what they want, and I hope this will help to facilitate that.

Since I am on my feet, I will make just a couple of short remarks, having been heavily involved in the Bill. I want to again thank the Minister and his team for the time that they gave for discussions with me about the Bill. I reiterate what I said then and stress to the Government that I hope they will keep three points in mind as this becomes law and it starts to be implemented, because most of this will not have any impact until we have the regulations.

First, where we are now is way behind the best global standards. This is an area where we should be talking about being world-leading for the health of our nation and of our environment. Secondly, I would like the Government to acknowledge that we are already on a poisoned planet and in an environment where our water, soil, air and indeed our food and our homes are saturated with far too many chemicals and other substances that are damaging to our health and, again, to environmental health. Thirdly, we have to start to consider the cocktail effect. With most of the testing of products, when companies go to put this product or that chemical into the environment, they say, “Look, what’s the safe limit for this product?” But all of our bodies, our young people and our environment are being exposed to rising levels of microplastics, pesticides and PFASs—all those chemicals and products—and when we consider what is allowed for the future, we have to remember that it is going out into that already poisoned environment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words about Commons Amendment 2—I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing all the amendments and referring to the purpose of that amendment. As he clarified, Commons Amendment 2 takes Clause 9 out of the list of those parts of the Bill which will in due course be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure. From my point of view, that is a substantive change as compared to what we saw previously in the Bill.

As the Minister explained, Clause 9 relates to existing product requirements, but it provides for a power to make regulations relating to existing product requirements as if they were product regulations for product requirements under this new legislation. Clause 9 allows for provisions described in Clauses 2(4), (6) or (7)—I am concerned with Clause 2(7)—that are able to be applied to existing product requirements.

What does Clause 2(7) tell us? It tells us that product regulations may be made by reference to relevant EU law. From my point of view—I will not rehearse all the debates we have had, but they are particularly important debates—this is a provision the use of which is significant. The occasions on which we choose to set our regulations and our product requirements by reference to EU law are important questions. As it happens, my view is that any use of Clause 2(7) should be subject to the affirmative procedure, but the Minister will no doubt remind me that that is not, nor intended to be, the case. I think it ought to be. The purpose of this is, in that sense, in my view, not technical but substantive. It means that existing product requirements can be amended in future by regulations which relate to relevant EU law and apply new product requirements or change product requirements by reference to EU law. I think that is significant, and my simple submission is that this is a significant change. I reiterate the point I made previously in debates: that the affirmative resolution should have been used in relation to any application of EU law in making our own product requirements.

We look forward with some anticipation to learning when and in relation to what this will happen. The noble Baroness, who was talking about chemical regulations, may be interested in this because, who knows, we have just seen reiteration of EU legislation relating to REACH. We do not know to what extent the REACH regulations are going to be reproduced in this country in the form in which we now see them in the European Union. The same may apply to AI. I have seen speculation that regulations relating to the European Union’s AI Act could be introduced and applied as product requirements in this country in product regulation using relevant EU law under AI as a mechanism. I do not know what is the Government’s intention. All I am saying is that I think it is a substantive change, and I wish that the Government, both in the original drafting of the Bill and in this respect, had used the affirmative procedure so that we could examine it when it happens.