Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, once more, the Government have chosen to add a new clause, through Amendment 64, at this very late stage in the Bill’s progress, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It really is not acceptable practice, for the reason the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave, which is that we have not been able to give this new clause proper and appropriate depth of scrutiny. The new clause has only four lines, and that includes its title. The other two and a half lines, if enacted, will have, as other noble Lords have said, a significant and maybe serious impact on local planning decision-making.

When I first saw the amendment, I was concerned and thought that I had perhaps got it wrong. However, we have now heard from across the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Banner, our expert in this House on planning matters, questioning the Minister on the meaning of what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Young, have all raised considerable concerns about the extent of what this brief clause will actually achieve. In her own inimitable way, the Minister has been able to underplay the clause by saying, “It is just an anomaly. It’s not going to make any difference really”. If it is not going to make any difference really, do not bring it in at this late stage. If it were so important, I am sure the Government would have noticed it, either in the discussions at the other end of the Parliament or at least in Committee here, so I have a feeling that it may not be as unimportant a clause as the Minister has been making out.

Where does that leave us? All noble Lords who have had experience, as many of us have, of the process of planning applications will know that planning committees are rightly required to make their decisions in accordance with planning legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework, all relevant national policies and their local plan, which includes local planning policies.

If a planning committee wishes to refuse a planning application, it has to do so, as others have said, with valid planning reasons. Failure to do so means that the applicant, rightly, takes that to the Planning Inspectorate for an appeal against that decision. If the planning committee has made a foolish decision, not giving valid reasons for refusal, the Planning Inspectorate, rightly, awards costs against the council, which is why there are not many planning appeals where costs are awarded against councils because planning officers in a local planning authority will advise their members accordingly.

Then you ask yourself: if that is the case and a refusal could go to inquiry or a written resolution of it, why is it necessary to call it in before a refusal has been given? The only reason I can come up with is that the Government wish to push through applications that are not relevant or appropriate to a local plan. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, hit the nail on the head: it substantially changes the tone and direction of planning, so that it becomes more of a national rather than a local decision-making process.

For somebody who is a cheerleader for local decision-making, who wants proper devolution, who thinks that making decisions locally is the right thing to do —as do many other parts of western Europe, which have successful governance as a consequence—to bring things back to the centre all the time is simply not acceptable. We on these Benches will strongly oppose government Amendment 64. I have explained to the Minister, out of due courtesy, that we will be doing so. This is overreach and will not do.

I turn to Amendment 87D. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others have referred to it. The noble Baroness and I had a brief discussion the other day. She knows that I support Amendment 87D. If she wishes to take it to a decision of the House, we will support her. But, fundamentally, the balance between local and national decision-making is being tipped too far in the direction of national decision-making on policies, and that is not acceptable. As I have said, we will oppose Amendment 64.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Government Amendment 64 in this group. As we have heard, this amendment would allow a development order to enable the Secretary of State to give directions restricting the refusal of planning permission in principle by a local planning authority in England. Under Section 77(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State already possesses powers to intervene by calling in an application for their own determination. Therefore, I ask the Minister, what has changed? Will the existing guardrails and provisions governing the call-in process remain intact? Will the mechanisms by which call-in operates continue as they do now? How will the Secretary of State ensure that this power is not overused, thereby overriding local decision-making?

The Government should explain precisely what this amendment achieves that cannot already be done under existing law. If it represents a fundamental change to the call-in power, the Government should set that out clearly today, including the proposed changes, the safeguards and how the new power is intended to operate. If the Minister cannot provide that assurance, we will be inclined to test the opinion of the House on whether this amendment should proceed. Instead of tinkering with this power, the Government’s real focus should have been elsewhere: on proportionality and addressing the implications of the Hillside judgment. Energy should be directed towards tackling the real blockages in the planning system.

I turn to Amendment 65—which I hope will not be required—tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. This amendment would provide an incentive for local planning authorities to adopt up-to-date local plans and, in doing so, regain control over the granting of planning permissions in accordance with those plans. This raises an important point: the absence of up-to-date local plans across much of England remains one of the central causes of delay, inconsistency and local frustration with the planning system. The Government must therefore give the issues this amendment raises due regard and set out in clear detail how they intend to address the concerns it raises.

Finally, I am not quite sure why my noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendment 87D is in this group, but we have heard the feeling of the House on this. I know it is an issue my noble friend is rightly passionate about, and it is important. On the one hand, the Government have given communities their assets or enabled them to take them over; on the other, they are not protected from being lost. This is an important issue for the Minister, and I look forward to a very positive response to this especially important amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I hear the strength of feeling in the House on this amendment. It might be helpful if I set out in a bit more detail the way the Section 31 direction works. It is important to note that a Section 31 direction allows time for the Secretary of State to consider whether to exercise call-in powers. It is exactly what it says on the tin: a holding direction to enable that process to go through.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the use of holding directions helps to prevent exactly the circumstances he described by restricting the issuing of a decision on a planning application—whether it be to grant or to refuse—to allow time for full consideration of whether it raises issues of more than local importance, such that it merits calling in, and to help prevent the rushed consideration of such matters. I have dealt with a number of these call-ins of applications since becoming a Minister. Every time we look at a called-in application, we have to consider the criteria against which the Secretary of State will consider the call-in of a local application. I hope it will be helpful if I very quickly go through those.

Compliance with the local development plan is not the question here; it is whether the Secretary of State will use the call-in powers, and they will use them only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, may conflict with national policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I point out that this is yet another late-in-the-day government amendment. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that this time I am in agreement with Amendment 67.

To extend the time limits from implementing a planning consent where there has been a legal challenge seems right and fair. I did not quite catch whether the Minister explained the full extent of it, but I assume that it means that for general applications that are subject to a judicial or statutory review it will be a one-year extension, a further year if it goes to the Court of Appeal, and then a further two years if it goes to the Supreme Court. The noble Baroness nods. So that is right and fair. That is a balanced approach, which is one of my ways of judging things: “Is it right, fair and balanced?” I think that is fair to the applicants. So, with the nod that I had from the Minister, I agree with Amendment 67 and with Amendment 104, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which is very similar.

The other amendments in this group, Amendments 77, 78 and 79, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, would make serious changes to the ability of citizens to go to law where they feel that due process has failed them. Restricting those rights does not feel to me acceptable without further and full consideration by those who are expert in these matters—which is not me. With those comments, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner, and to government Amendment 261. We are grateful for the Government’s engagement with my noble friend on this issue.

These amendments would prevent planning permission from timing out as a result of protracted legal challenge and remove the perverse incentive for meritless claims designed simply to run down the clock. At present, judicial reviews, as we have heard, often outlast the three-year planning deadline, leaving permissions to time out, wasting money on repeat or dummy applications and discouraging serious investment. Stopping the clock during a judicial review would protect legitimate permissions, reduce waste and deter vexatious claims. It carries no real downside for the Government.

The Government say that they agree with the policy intention. We welcome the Government’s move to address the concerns held on these Benches and their work with my noble friend Lord Banner on these issues. This is a question of proportionality and fairness in the planning system. If time is lost to litigation, that time should not count against the permission. Properly granted permissions should not be undone by process; it should be done by merit. Far from slowing down planning, this change would help to speed it up by reducing wasteful repeat applications, giving confidence to investors and allowing us to get on with building in the right places.

Finally, I speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The ideas, the intentions and the thoughts processed behind these amendments are good ones, built on a sound principle. However, we do not believe that these amendments are practical. The proposed process would involve going straight to a hearing. In our view, the court would simply not have the necessary bandwidth. Nevertheless, we are sympathetic to the purpose of his amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from across the House for the Government’s amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, has had to rush off to the Supreme Court, apparently, but I am grateful for his support for our amendment.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this amendment has been developed in response to a discussion that we had in Committee and with extensive engagement with fellow Peers to improve the process of judicial review, which has been an ongoing issue. I hope that this reassures her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 103, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner and co-signed by my noble friend Lord Jamieson and me. At present, planning processes have become anything but proportionate. The precautionary principle is too often applied as though it requires zero risk. Environmental statements run to thousands of pages; inspectors demand reams of questions; statutory consultees require unnecessary detail, even at outline stage; and consultants, fearful of liability, produce overlong reports that few people will ever read. None of this improves the quality of decisions, but it clogs up the systems, slows delivery and undermines confidence.

This amendment would not abandon the precautionary principle; it would preserve it in its proper sense by ensuring no regression on environmental protections while restoring a degree of pragmatism and common sense. It would help to strip out duplication, shorten an unnecessary process, and empower the Secretary of State to issue guidance to ensure flexibility and future-proofing. In Committee, the Minister conceded the main point. She openly accepted that proportionality is desirable and that the system has become overly complex. In doing so, she essentially validated the case for this amendment before rejecting it. That position is not sustainable. If we agree that the system is disproportionate, we should act to correct it.

This amendment does exactly that. It would embed proportionality into planning as a guiding principle, striking the right balance between proper scrutiny, environmental responsibility and the need to deliver homes and infrastructure in a timely way. When the time comes, we intend to divide the House on this amendment.

I turn to Amendment 119, tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment seeks to ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under this Act give due consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to respond to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. It aims to remove the size and complexity tests currently required for awarding a water infrastructure project licence. While this is a technical amendment, it would have significant implications.

Under existing regulations, a water infrastructure project licence is awarded only if the project is considered large or complex enough to potentially threaten the incumbent water undertaker’s ability to deliver services. The test involves assessing factors like projected costs, risk profile, delivery complexity and the water company’s competencies, among others, to determine whether specifying the project to an extended provider would result in better value for money and service stability. The amendment’s goal is clear: it is to remove this test.

I have listened to what the noble Baroness said. It is argued that the amendment would allow smaller or less complex projects potentially to be outsourced or treated as specified infrastructure projects, SIPs, and offer better economic efficiency. While we recognise that this could lead to broader applications of the project licences and potentially facilitate more third-party infrastructure projects in the water sector—we share this ambition to accelerate infrastructure delivery—we are cautious on this amendment, and I follow the line that we took in Committee. The current regulatory framework, which includes a size and complexity threshold, exists as a crucial safeguard. Ofwat’s regulations are intended, and the test ensures it, for ambitious projects, if managed by an incumbent company, not to threaten the water company’s fundamental services obligations to its customers.

Given the widely acknowledged fragility of the water sector more generally and the broken infrastructure that has led to substantial water wastage, we must think carefully before rushing to add to this. Instead of risking unintended consequences through a quick legislative fix, we prefer a more robust path that could be considered by the Government co-funding models, for example, similar to those used in the nuclear sector, if crucial projects exceed what companies can realistically deliver.

It is also essential to take note of the Government’s concerns raised in Committee regarding the amendment. They confirmed that they actively resisted this amendment, certainly in Committee. They have already made a commitment to review the specified infrastructure projects, SIPR, framework. Our understanding is that Defra intends to amend it to help major water companies to proceed more quickly and deliver better value for bill payers. The Government stated their concerns that removing the size complexity threshold now would pre-empt that planned review process. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that any changes are properly informed by engagement with regulators and industry to create a regime that remains targeted and proportionate to the sector’s diversity needs. The Minister assured the Committee that this essential review, which follows the publication of the Cunliffe review on water industry modernisation, will be completed in this calendar year.

For those reasons, while we welcome the spirit of Amendment 58A, we believe that the responsible course of action is to allow the Government to complete their committed to and planned regulatory review, so we are unable to support this amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 58A, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. As we have heard, under the current framework, only projects deemed sufficiently large or complex can be considered for a separate infrastructure licence. This threshold may have made sense at the time that the regulations were introduced, but it now risks being a barrier to innovation and investment in the sector, which is already under increased strain. By removing this test, the amendment would allow projects to be assessed on their value for money alone—a clearer, more practical standard. It would not lower the bar for scrutiny but rather broaden the scope for alternative delivery models, where they can be demonstrated to give clear public benefit.

Given the ongoing challenges around water security, pollution and climate resilience, we should be enabling a wider range of solutions and not limiting them to outdated regulatory constraints. This is a modest and targeted amendment that would give Ofwat and the relevant authorities greater flexibility to support efficient investment in our water infrastructure. We agree with its intent, we support it, and we hope that the Government will think again.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which seeks to ensure that the specified infrastructure project regulations are amended to enable a broader use and to ensure that we get value for money for customers.

Two procurement models for delivering infrastructure exist at the moment: SIPR and direct procurement for customers—DPC. I acknowledge that we have to do all we can to make sure that customers get the good value for money that we are all seeking. That is why, in the Government’s response to the independent water review undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, we will address our proposals for changes across both those procurement models, in the White Paper that will be published shortly. For that reason, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 61 in this group is in my name. I will talk to that in a moment, but first I want to say one or two things about the helpful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I think it points in the right direction, but we need to understand where we would end up if we were to go in that direction.

Some noble Lords will have participated in the debate that we had toward the latter stages of the last Parliament about the new regulations relating to planning fees. One thing that came through quite forcibly from that was that householders—for example, making applications in relation to their own houses—were paying significantly less than the cost of dealing with their application. I completely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that there is, and has been subsequently in the Government’s changes to the planning charges, some balancing of that, and that householders are paying more.

If I understand correctly, it is the noble Baroness’s intention that the fees charged should be proportionate to the number of households or the scale of a development—although that is not actually what her amendment says. The amendment simply says that it should be proportionate; it does not say proportionate to what. Basing it on the size of a development could mean basing it in a positive correlation or a negative correlation. I am afraid that when you write legislation, you have to write specifically what you want. Otherwise, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his colleagues will take it apart. We do not want that; we want to be very clear about what we are setting out to achieve.

I am sure it is not the noble Baroness’s intention to press the amendment, but it raises an important issue. When Ministers bring forward regulations to set out how the planning fees should be set and the criteria by which they should be set, it is at that point that I hope they will take full account of what the noble Baroness said and the purposes she was describing.

My amendment is derived from our debate in Committee. I did not have an amendment then, but we had an exchange about Clause 49, which relates to the surcharge that can be charged for the purpose of meeting the costs of statutory consultees and other bodies that support the planning process. When we reach Clause 49, we see that new Section 303ZZB(6) states that the level of the surcharge must be set so as to

“secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons”.

I noticed, in listening to the debate, that new Section 303ZZB(8) says that:

“Regulations …may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons”.


We therefore have the curious situation where, in the same section, it says that it should not exceed the costs and also that regulations have the specific power to exceed the costs. I have not had a conversation with the Minister, but I have been thinking about this quite carefully. The purpose of tabling this amendment is to ask whether my understanding is correct. If it is, I think it would be very helpful for that to be said explicitly.

New subsection (8), which says that the surcharge could exceed the costs of the listed persons, relates to a specific application, so the charge does not have to be set so as not to exceed the costs of the work done in relation to any individual application. New subsection (6) tells us that, in effect, it is not just taking one year with another or looking at the costs, but looking at costs across all of these activities and applications, and that, overall, the listed persons should not receive more by way of income from the surcharge than meets their costs. I hope that the explanation of the Bill is precisely that: subsection (8) should only be referenced in relation to an individual application and could not be used to set surcharges so as to provide greater income to statutory consultees or others than the costs they incur dealing with planning applications.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations be proportionate to the nature and size of the development to which it applies. Proportionate fees are of course vital to ensure fairness between applicants and avoid placing undue burdens on smaller developments. However, we cannot support this amendment as further prescription in the legislation risks reducing flexibility for local authorities and the Secretary of State to respond to changing circumstances. We agree with the principle of proportionality, but we do not think this is the right way. I hope that the Minister will look at our Amendment 103 later today.

Amendment 60 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh would allow the cost of enforcement measures, such as checking whether specified flood mitigation or resilience measures have been properly installed, to be included in the fees. While I entirely agree with the intention to ensure that local planning authorities can recover their costs, we cannot support this amendment. We are concerned that this might blur the line between the cost of enforcement and the wider issues of fees, which are separate statutory functions, although this is an issue we should continue to look at into the future.

Finally, Amendment 61 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley seeks to reduce what may be included in fees for planning provisions made under subsections (5A) and (5B). I recognise my noble friend’s concerns about the overreach in fee structures and I hope the Government can take the time today to set out the reasons and intentions behind these subsections.

New Homes Target

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is an appropriate question for today because I met the leader of Plymouth City Council just this morning, and we talked about some of the issues facing Devon. We understand that the reorganisation of local government adds to the considerable pressures that local authorities already face. However, it is essential to ensure that local authorities are as efficient and sustainable as possible. We are working closely with our local authorities on that project. We have helped our local planning authorities with resourcing through an increase in planning fees for householders and other applications, as well as through measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to cover costs. We have also provided a £46 million package of support to help train and build capacity in local planning authorities.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in an Oral Question in September, my noble friend Lord Jamieson raised a concern with the Minister about the proposed removal of the lower rate of landfill tax for inert construction waste, a change that could reportedly add up to £25,000 to the cost of building a single new home. At the time, the Minister did not directly respond to the question; she promised a written response that has not been received. Given the Government’s ambition for 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, can the Minister now clarify their position on this proposal and explain how such measures would support, rather than hinder, their wider housing delivery ambition?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The treatment of landfill is important for the environment, so it is key that we deal with that efficiently. I attended an SME round table as part of the APPG for SME House Builders last week; they raised the issue with me, and I will take it back to the department. I thought that I had replied to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but I will go through and make sure that we did so. This is a particular issue for SME builders, so we are thinking that through and will issue a response shortly.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I have just a few brief points to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, stated. For me, this goes back to the governance system. Of course we have made progress in recent years; we have the strategic spatial energy plan, which is being managed by NESO, but we are hearing some feedback on that plan. In effect, it tries to map out what energy projects should be located where, in minute detail across the country. The industry has highlighted a number of problems with trying to do this at that scale; we need local knowledge flowing up into these plans. As well as the top down, we need the bottom up. We need to capture all the great knowledge that local areas and local authorities have.

I will just take heat as an example. One area may be better suited to heat pumps and another to heat networks. One area may have relatively well-insulated housing stock; another, poorly insulated housing stock. We need to capture all that and bring it into the energy transition. It is an important piece of the puzzle to making this energy transition work and making it cost effective. A recent study by UKRI highlighted tens of billions of pounds of savings if a place-based approach is taken over a place-agnostic approach, so it is important that the Government make some progress on this. We have not seen the progress needed.

We have had some good pilots using this approach in various areas across the country, but we now need the Government to get behind this approach to feed all the benefits of that local knowledge into the energy transition. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister at least on timescales, on how they see this programme developing and on it reaching a decision on the role that local area energy plans will play in the energy transition.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to ensure that small-scale renewable energy products are prioritised by the independent system operator and planner. As the noble Baroness knows, we on these Benches are very concerned about energy prices and want to see Ministers taking a pragmatic approach to delivering the energy infrastructure that we need.

I know that there is a particular interest in renewables, but we need to take a whole-system approach, tackling policy costs as well as the marginal costs of electricity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the current support for renewables at a smaller scale, and it would be helpful for the House to know what plans the Government have on smaller renewables.

Although we feel that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is too prescriptive, it raises an important question about planning our energy supply for the future. Clearly, local needs should be taken into account. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Amendment 24 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, though well intentioned, is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome of greater support with the grid connection process for smaller renewable energy projects. The amendment seeks to require the independent system operator and planner to prioritise support for smaller renewable energy projects when they apply for a grid connection. I recognise the noble Baroness’s helpful attempt to support smaller renewable energy projects. The Government appreciate the important role that smaller renewable energy projects, such as rooftop solar and community energy, can play in meeting our clean power mission, reducing energy costs and engaging communities in renewable energy.

Along with the independent energy regulator, Ofgem, the Government also recognise that more needs to be done to support smaller electricity network connection customers, including renewable energy projects, but this is achievable within the regulatory framework without the need for primary legislation. Indeed, Ofgem has already proposed stronger incentives and obligations on network companies to provide better connection customer service. Following a consultation earlier this year, it expects to publish further details and next steps in the coming weeks.

The amendment’s wording would also not meet the desired outcome. Section 16 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires electricity distribution network operators to connect customers. The amendment would place an obligation on the independent system operator and planner only in terms of the way in which the duties under Section 16 are complied with. However, the independent system operator and planner has no duties under Section 16. Given the legislative unworkability of the amendment, and given work already under way to support smaller renewable energy connection customers, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw it.

Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to require the Government to commence a programme of research and analysis on the imposition of a statutory duty on local authorities to produce local area energy plans, and publish a report on their findings; and to require the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a formal policy decision on a statutory duty within two years. We recognise that the amendment moves the debate on from Committee so that an immediate burden is not placed on local authorities to produce a local area energy plan, and nor are the Government required to immediately produce national guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans. The amendment places this work in the context of planning for electricity infrastructure, but the approach set out in the amendment risks constraining and duplicating work already under way, and it may constrain the way the Government continue to work in partnership with local government.

The overall approach to this work is being undertaken jointly with local government through the ministerial Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which meets quarterly. This is co-chaired with the Local Government Association. The group has discussed the development of a framework for local government to provide more clarity on the roles and responsibilities for net zero and energy. This group will need to reflect on the role of local government on energy planning and net zero in the context of the warm homes plan and Great British Energy’s local power plan, both due shortly.

The kind of research envisaged by the amendment is already under way. This has been commissioned by DESNZ from local government officials working in local net zero hubs. This includes preparing guidance for local authorities on what they need to do on energy planning to prepare for the regional energy strategic plans that Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—are producing. Ofgem and NESO are looking to consult on the approach and methodology later this year. They are also developing guidance and tools for local government to help it specify and procure high-quality data to support energy planning, with outputs due by January 2026.

In conclusion, we do not believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out in such detail a programme of work to review local energy planning. We are sympathetic to the points raised and agree with the point made in Committee about the importance of including local understanding in delivering the bigger picture on energy planning. I hope I have been able to give some assurances that the Government agree that local involvement in energy planning is important and that the kind of work the amendment envisages is already under way.

I must stress the need to review local area energy planning in the context of ongoing work and other policies and strategies as and when they are published, rather than to the timetable and in the way set out in the amendment. Preferably, this should be in partnership with local government, reflecting needs and approaches. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is satisfied with our response and will consider withdrawing her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, group 14 concerns a matter of principle that cuts across the Bill: the appropriate level of parliamentary oversight for far-reaching executive powers. New Section 38A introduces a consumer benefit scheme to provide financial compensation to those living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The principle behind this is entirely sound. It is right that communities that host nationally significant infrastructure should share in its benefits.

We support Amendments 26 and 27 in the name of the Minister. Amendment 26 would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, not just those relating to offences or enforcement. These regulations will define who qualifies for support, how benefits are delivered and the responsibilities of electricity suppliers. These are substantive decisions that should not be made without oversight of Parliament.

Amendment 27 is a necessary consequential amendment to reflect this change. Given the wide scope of delegated powers in the new section inserted by the clause, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament has a say in how much a significant scheme is developed and applied. The affirmative procedure does not prevent progress. It simply ensures that when Ministers exercise broad powers, they do so transparently and with accountability.

We believe these amendments strike the right balance between enabling the Government to deliver the scheme and ensuring that Parliament plays its proper role. We are pleased to support them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for speaking, and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for getting Halifax and Huddersfield mixed up. But neither Halifax nor Huddersfield will be getting their own clause in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

This is a massive missed opportunity, because the Government did not spend a moment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, did, to work out for themselves what they wanted to achieve or set a purpose that works with the grain of the nation, rather than always kicking against the bricks that should be laid by the bricklayers—the ground workers, tilers and carpenters—who now sit idly as a result, until the moment when we get another planning Bill. I shall not stand against the noble Baroness, but I hope that she will reflect in winding that perhaps she could and should have gone a little further to frame her amendment in enhancing that delicate balance between the private and public interests, so that the economy can get going and these houses can get built.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward this purpose clause. It serves as a timely reminder of what the Bill is meant to achieve: the delivery of 1.5 million new homes and important infrastructure projects. It is increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that this goal is slipping further and further from reach. The problem is not simply one of ambition but of process and principle. The Government have tabled no fewer than 67 new amendments to the Bill, in almost 30 pages of legislative text, and have done so at a very late stage.

The media were briefed in advance, I note, yet this House received no explanation from Ministers when those amendments were laid until last Tuesday. Under normal circumstances, such sweeping provisions would warrant detailed scrutiny in Committee, not introduction on Report. To describe them as minor or technical, as Ministers have attempted to do, simply does not match the scale and significance of what has been briefed to the press. The Financial Times and others have reported that the Government’s own description of these measures is that they represent substantial reforms to the planning system, so which is it? Are these minor adjustments or a fundamental rewrite of national planning policy? It appears that we are witnessing a major talk-up—an oversell of provisions designed to mask the Government’s ongoing failure to deliver the homes. It is a conjuring trick, saying one thing to the press and quite another in this Chamber.

According to reports, the Prime Minister himself ordered a last-minute rewrite of the Bill, with Ministers working throughout the weekend to agree a package intended to speed up major housing and infrastructure schemes. That was on Friday 10 October. Earlier that same week, the Financial Times revealed that that rewrite forms part of a broader effort to boost growth and patch up public finances ahead of the November Budget—a Budget date already circled in the calendar of many families in this country and of businesses and pensioners, though not with much enthusiasm.

Monthly construction output fell by an estimated 0.3% in August 2025, after showing no growth at all in July. I therefore ask the Minister how the Bill will change that. Should not the Government instead focus on things such as modular construction, utilising 3D modelling and reviewing outdated regulations? No Act of Parliament can succeed if the construction industry itself is faltering under the environment the Government have created.

It is therefore fair to ask whether these amendments reflect deliberate legislative design or the political and fiscal pressures of the moment. By mid-October, the Treasury would already have seen the OBR’s preliminary focus and, I rather suspect, blanched at what it showed. It may be that in the face of deteriorating growth and revenue projections, someone in Whitehall decided that a hasty burst of planning reform might steady the nerves ahead of the Budget, but legislation made in haste rarely makes good law. The planning system must balance the urgent need for homes and infrastructure, with, as we have heard, the rights of local communities and the principles of democratic scrutiny. Bypassing consultation, local accountability and indeed proper deliberation in your Lordships’ House, the Government risk undermining the very trust and co-operation they will need to deliver their own housing ambitions.

The Government have clearly not learned. They crudely cut £5 billion from welfare in haste in the spring in pursuit of a green tick on the OBR’s scorecard. I fear that they are now making the same mistake again, rushing to legislate for the sake of appearance rather than outcomes for this country. That is why this purpose clause is so valuable. It brings us back to the first principles. What is the purpose of the Bill? Is it truly to build homes or to centralise power? We do not even know who is in charge of this legislation. Is it No. 10, No. 11 or MHCLG? The Minister knows that throughout the passage of the Bill, I have sought to offer the Government constructive support, but it becomes ever harder to do so when their approach borders on chaos: saying one thing and doing another; briefing the press with grand claims while sidelining Parliament and scrutiny. I hope the Minister recognises the depth of disappointment felt across this House.

In conclusion, whatever the Government’s intention, the manner in which these amendments have been introduced must not diminish the scrutiny they receive. The House has a duty to examine legislation carefully, especially when it touches on this delicate balance between local democracy and national authority. We will approach these amendments in that spirit—with diligence, patience and respect for due process—and we will not be rushed or intimidated into setting aside our responsibilities in the name of political convenience. The scale and consequence of these proposals demands nothing less than the full and thoughtful consideration of your Lordships’ House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

Well, well, my Lords, that was a wide-ranging debate for an opening debate on a purpose clause. Nevertheless, I thank those who contributed to the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her extensive engagement between Committee and Report.

This is indeed an ambitious piece of legislation. It is our next step to fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. The Bill will support delivery of the Government’s hugely ambitious plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that his Government had 14 years to fix the sclerotic planning system that has hobbled growth in this country for over a decade, yet they failed to do so. Our Government are working across departments—yes, and I welcome that—to deliver what the last Government failed to do, which is to build the homes we need and the infrastructure that will support those homes, and to get our economy moving again.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that I am afraid she cannot have it both ways on the amendments that the Government have tabled. She has accused me in this Chamber of not listening. Well, we did listen in Committee and some of the amendments are in response to issues that were raised then. A number of those amendments relate to the devolved Administrations and we rightfully had consultations with those Administrations between Committee and Report. There are some truly pro-growth measures that we feel are rightly pressing and need to be done to improve the delivery of infrastructure, and there are a number of technical, minor amendments.

The Bill is not the only step towards improving the economy and delivering against our plan for change. The noble Baroness will know that we have reissued the National Planning Policy Framework; we have provided funding and training for planners; and we have provided a huge packet of support for SMEs. I met the APPG for SME House Builders the other day and it was pleased with the package that is being delivered. There is more to be done in working with the APPG, and I will be happy to do that. We have also carried out a fundamental review of the building safety regulator. All these things will contribute to the growth we all want to see.

I outlined the core objectives of the Bill at Second Reading, and we also discussed these at length in Committee. I do not suggest that I do so a third time. I recognise that planning law can be a complex part of the statute book to negotiate and interpret, whether you are a developer, a local authority, the courts or even a member of the public. I also appreciate that where a Bill has one sole objective, a purpose clause could clearly articulate this, assist people with understanding the Bill and affect the interpretation of its provisions. This Bill has a number of different objectives, with much of it amending existing law. A purpose clause is not helpful in these circumstances and could create unintended consequences. It is simply not possible or prudent for all these objectives to apply equally to each provision.

I believe we are all united by a shared objective today. On whichever side of the House we sit, we all agree that this House plays an important role in scrutinising legislation to ensure it achieves the intended objectives and to maximise the Bill’s benefit. I firmly believe that the intention behind this amendment is noble. I understand that it is tabled to aid interpretation of the Bill. My issues with purpose clauses, and the reasons I cannot accept this amendment, boil down to two things: their necessity and the potential for unintended consequences. Well-written legislation provides a clear articulation of what changes are proposed by the Government to deliver their objectives. It is for the Government to set out in debate why they are bringing forward a Bill during parliamentary passage. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the intended changes to the law should speak for themselves.

The Government’s objectives are clear. They are also woven into this legislation through reference to a number of different targeted documents that set out the Government’s strategic intent in specific areas of policy. It is right that these objectives vary according to the topic—some of these objectives will be more important for one issue than another. If this was not the case, the Bill would lose its strategic vision.

The Government strongly support a strategic approach to planning. The word “strategic” is mentioned 196 times in the Bill, as amended in Committee. The Bill inserts a part specifically called “Strategic plan-making”, intended to ensure that planning decisions are undertaken at a more strategic level. Large parts of the Bill are drafted to take a more strategic, targeted approach to achieving the Government’s objectives. For example, this legislation gives regard to other strategic documents, such as the clean power action plan. This is all done with the intention of making clear how this legislation seeks to deliver the Government’s objectives.

Adding a purpose clause to the Bill is not the answer to addressing the complexity of the statute book, or even this legislation. In practice, it would do the opposite; it would add additional room for interpretation to a Bill intending to accelerate delivery and simplify a system. It risks creating additional complexity in interpretation, gumming up the planning system further. It risks reinserting the gold-plating behaviour we are seeking to remove. Developers and local authorities, for example, would feel obligated to show how they have considered priorities that are much more relevant to other parts of the Bill for fear of legal action. A purpose clause would provide a hook for those looking to judicially review or appeal decisions in order to slow them down.

The measures in the Bill should be allowed to speak for themselves. They have been carefully drafted to be interpreted without a purpose clause. The courts should be left to interpret the law without having to navigate their way through a maze of different purposes sitting on top of strategic objectives. A purpose clause would create ambiguity rather than clarity.

It does not appear to me, from the debate I have heard, that the House is confused by why the Government are seeking to bring this Bill forward. I think we all know that we seek to achieve the growth and the homes that this country deserves. We should therefore move forward to further debate how best to achieve them. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I am speaking ahead of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who has Amendment 7B. It is a pity she said 20 or more houses, because the loss of any number of houses to a large reservoir should cause us to stop and think. That will have a significant impact on people, on their family histories and on the whole way their little community works. If the noble Baroness pushes her amendment to a vote, we on these Benches will be inclined to support her.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s Amendment 4—the new clause to be inserted after Clause 2—relates to projects concerning water. As I understand it, this amendment would allow projects carried out by third parties, appointed by water undertakers, to fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project under Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008, provided that the other conditions set out in Sections 27, 28 and 28A of that Act are met.

While I appreciate the intention to streamline delivery and facilitate investment in critical water infrastructure, I must raise a number of concerns and questions to the Minister. First, what safeguards will ensure that the thresholds for NSIP designation—particularly those relating to scale and national importance—are still meaningfully applied? It is essential that this designation remains reserved for truly nationally significant projects, not simply those that happen to be large or, indeed, convenient.

Secondly, can the Minister clarify why the existing provisions—which limit NSIP status to projects undertaken directly by water undertakers—are now deemed insufficient? What problem, precisely, is this amendment intended to solve?

Additionally, are the Government considering similar extensions of NSIP eligibility in other sections of infrastructure? If so, it would be helpful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether this represents a broader shift in planning policy or an exceptional measure just limited to water infrastructure.

Finally, will the Government commit to a review of the amendment’s impact after, say, three or five years, to ensure that it has not led to unintended consequences, particularly in relation to accountability, environmental standards or the integrity of the NSIP regime?

I also welcome my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments in this group. I understand he has had many discussions with the Minister, and I thank the Government for their response on these amendments.

Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also raises important questions for Ministers about the ability of farmers and landowners to develop small reservoirs that pose little potential threat to local communities. We know we need more reservoirs, and the Government have talked about this a great deal. We look to Ministers to show willing on smaller reservoirs too, and we encourage the Minister to listen to my noble friend on this important issue.

Finally, Amendment 7A in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson and my Amendment 7B are on introducing due process for communities and heritage threatened by reservoirs being delivered through the NSIP process. We tabled these amendments in response to the Government’s amendment tabled last Monday and we are keen to work with the Government to get a workable amendment into the Bill, if it is necessary.

I also say at the outset that we are fully supportive of the steps to get on with the delivery of critical national infrastructure, but where consultation of local communities and heritage protections are disapplied through the NSIP process, we have to be sure that is appropriate in those cases. As the Government seek to deliver more reservoirs, we want to ensure that communities, heritage and local individuals who have their homes, gardens and history invested in those areas are protected and that the Secretary of State takes proper account of their views. My noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay has spoken about a number of historical examples. If villages are to be flooded in the future, with all their history and heritage, we must make sure a proper process is followed.

It is not just in the north of England that we have reservoirs. I farmed near Bough Beech and I knew Bewl Water in Kent; both of these were where some communities were flooded. Decades and generations on, people are still talking about the community that is under that water.

We will therefore seek to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7B and ask the Minister to seriously consider making sure that future communities will be protected.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I will keep my comments relatively brief, because I had a lot to say at the beginning of this group. I start my concluding remarks by pointing out to noble Lords that it was concerns about water provision that encouraged the Government to bring forward further amendments in this respect. I thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in engagement both in the recess period, which I was very grateful for, and subsequent to that. I thank all those who met with me.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution. He set out his concerns very clearly and we appreciated that. That is why we are able to accept his amendments.

On the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I understand the great and ongoing concerns around the Capel Celyn issue. I am afraid that the powers in this Bill are for England, but I will come back to him in writing about what powers the Senedd has to act in a way that might help with his concerns. If that is acceptable to him, I will write to him on those specific issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, discussed the efficiency of reservoirs. There have been recent improvements in that, but there is room for further improvement, and I am sure that colleagues in Defra are as exercised as she is in making sure that that is the case. I am very glad that she mentioned Professor Bellamy; that brought back some very happy memories. I will not try an impression—I am not very good at them—but he was a real character. His contribution to the natural world in this country was enormous, and I am very grateful for that.

The noble Baroness asked about how the need for water is assessed; the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to that too. Water companies have a statutory duty to provide a secure supply of water for customers efficiently and economically and to set out how they plan to continue to supply water through statutory water resources management plans. They are assessing that constantly. These set out how each company will continue to meet this duty and manage the water supply and demand sustainably for at least the next 25 years. There is therefore a constant assessment of that.

On the noble Baroness’s points about smaller reservoirs, I hope that I set out clearly in my comments that these can be undertaken currently under permitted development. We recognise the need to look at those permitted development regulations, and we will return to them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

7B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Projects relating to water which require the demolition of villagesAfter section 35(4) (directions in relation to projects of national significance) of the Planning Act 2008 insert—“(4A) Where a development falls within the definition in section 27 and requires the demolition of more than 20 residential properties the Secretary of State may not give a direction under subsection (1) unless the persons who live at, or otherwise occupy, premises in the vicinity of the land have been notified and given the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State.””

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. However, for future communities who may be affected by the issues we have been debating, and in order to ensure not just proper consultation but proper engagement in those schemes, I wish to divide the House on my Amendment 7B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened in Committee to the concerns that were raised about the acceptance process. I am pleased that there has been a rethink. The changes proposed in the amendments are not opposed by these Benches.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have before us the Government’s latest set of amendments to Clause 6—or should I say what used to be Clause 6 before the Government took a pair of legislative shears to it? This clause as originally drafted, as we have heard from the Minister, would have changed the test for when an application for a development consent order is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. The Government now appear to have decided that their proposal was, in fact, unnecessary, perhaps even unworkable, so we are back to the status quo: the clear, objective test that ensures that applications are accepted only when they meet the proper standards of completeness and adequacy. Thank goodness for that. The test protects everyone: developers, communities and the integrity of the process. It ensures clarity at the gateway stage, not confusion. I thank the Minister for making these changes to the Bill.

Amendment 13 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. It seems that all the experience we have is that there is not coherence where there ought to be. I thank the Minister for her earlier willingness to react to the House and show that she was able to make the changes the House asked for. I hope she will say to her colleagues how much it helps the Government if we feel that they listen on things which are not party political but about how best to organise ourselves.

With the range of regulators we have, it is crucial to get coherence. I believe that we all know we have not got it at the moment. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, may not be ideal—I do not think he sees it in those terms—but it seeks to get from the Government a coherent programme for coherence. We all know that every day the urgency that climate change forces upon us gets more and more obvious. I have just come back from Northern Ireland, where businesses right across the board were saying how important that was and—I have to say to my noble friend—pointing out how unacceptable it is to try to change the architecture we have to try to deal with this. That architecture will work much better if we get a greater coherence across the board.

Therefore, I hope the Minister will be kind enough at least to give us some understanding of the way in which the Government hope to bring about that coherence and, in that, give us something about dates and times. I was a Minister for rather a long time and I know perfectly well that it is very easy to promise in general about the future almost any nice thing but what really matters is when and how it is going to be done.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 20A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, was considered in Committee. A number of questions were asked, and I think a number of questions remain unanswered. While we fully recognise the importance of sustainable development, we are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary. It appears to us that the Government already have—or should have—the tools they need to guide public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process, and I think we are satisfied that these powers are sufficient.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for meeting me during recess to discuss this. His Amendment 20A seeks to ensure that, in relation to NSIP for low-carbon energy, relevant authorities should have special regard to the achievement of Government’s environmental targets and sustainable development.

The amendment is similar to one debated in Committee. It refers specifically to compliance by the Secretary of State with carbon targets and budgeting and adapting to current or predicted climate change impacts under the Climate Change Act 2008, the achievement of biodiversity targets under the Environment Act 2021, and achieving sustainable development.

As the Government made clear in Committee, we recognise the importance of this issue, but we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It is vital that we move forward and deliver the critical infrastructure we need, not least to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. The Bill will deliver a win-win for growth and nature. Developments such as clean energy infrastructure are key to tackling the climate crisis and supporting nature recovery. The Government also appreciate the important role that these bodies play in the planning system. That is why we have taken action in response to the Corry review to ensure that these bodies are joined up and aligned with the Government’s broader priorities. I will say a bit more about that in a moment.

As I did in Committee, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are already utilising the tools they have to guide the considerations given by public bodies in their engagement with the development consent order process. The first of these relates to national policy. The energy national policy statements already take full account of the Government’s wider objectives for energy infrastructure to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and to ensure that the UK can meet its decarbonisation targets. We are also strengthening national policy statements through this Bill by requiring that they are updated at least every five years, and by making it easier to undertake interim updates for certain types of material amendments. The Government have recently concluded consultation on drafts of EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5, which will be updated to reflect the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.

The second relates to guidance. It is critical that public bodies engage fully in examinations so that the examining authority has access to their expertise and can properly scrutinise the application before reporting to the Secretary of State. Through the Bill, the Government are introducing a new duty on public bodies to have regard to any guidance published by the Secretary of State in making representations as part of examinations. This guidance will support government objectives by ensuring that these bodies engage effectively in the process and can provide the right information in a timely way.

We are currently consulting on reforms across the NSIP system to streamline the process. As well as consulting on what pre-application guidance to applicants should contain, we are seeking views on whether to strengthen expectations that statutory bodies attend hearings in person where relevant. As we then review and develop guidance on all aspects of the NSIP process, we will consider how this, alongside government policy in national policy statements, can support the intent of the amendment.

As I have made clear today, the guidance the Government will issue to statutory bodies about their role in the NSIP process will play a vital role, I hope, in addressing noble Lords’ concerns. The Government are clearly in the process of developing policies to update, streamline and rationalise the operation of these bodies and that of regulators and their role in the operation of the planning system, in response to both the Corry and the Cunliffe reviews. My colleagues would welcome further engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and others in the House who have a particular interest in this area, as we undertake the important work.

Complex projects engage multiple regimes, and I understand that they find themselves batted backwards and forwards between Defra regulators. So we are piloting a lead environmental regulator model to provide a single point of contact for developers on the most complex schemes. We have already made a start, working with the Lower Thames Crossing on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, asked about the timescale for releasing strategic policy statements for Defra regulators in response to the Corry review. This is one of nine fast-tracked recommendations—and I mean fast-tracked. We will communicate on this very soon—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that I am sorry to use that term—and, when I say “very soon”, I am talking about days, not weeks or months; I hope that gives him some guidance. As the noble Lord knows, the Secretary of State must have regard to matters that are relevant and important to decisions. For all those reasons, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and will withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to raise this as an issue of importance. Equally, she pointed to the fact that the impact and effect of EDPs will be discussed at more length when we discuss Part 3. Although EDPs do have a significant part to play in any NSIP consenting regime, the essence of this is about EDPs. Therefore, I hope we can look to a further debate on the whole issue of EDPs when we come to Part 3 later on Report.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing forward Amendment 21. Ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is vital and must not be overlooked. However, we are clear, and indeed passionate in our conviction, that the implementation of environmental delivery plans in their current form is deeply problematic. As drafted, the policy risks riding roughshod over our current environmental regime. We must also not forget the interests of farmers and land managers, who are, after all, the principal stewards of our natural environment. My noble friend Lord Roborough will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from Committee in the coming days. My noble friend Lady Coffey is right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plan will interact with a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Government must be clear on how this will work in practice and what they intend to consider when reviewing the impact of these projects.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan, or EDP, is taken into account by the Secretary of State when making a decision whether to grant permission to a nationally significant infrastructure project.

I can assure noble Lords that the way in which EDPs will work in practice means that this amendment is not necessary. Meeting the relevant environmental obligations with an EDP, just as when satisfying them under the current system, is a separate part of the process to the granting of permission. When a promoter commits to pay the levy in relation to an EDP, the making of that commitment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.

I emphasise again that it will, aside from in exceptional circumstances, be a voluntary decision for the promoter of a nationally significant infrastructure project to decide whether they pay the levy to rely on the EDP. This means that while the Secretary of State will need to consider a wide variety of matters, for the purposes of these decisions, the EDP will not be a consideration other than as a way of reflecting that the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature will have been addressed. It does not need to be considered beyond that in the decision to grant permission. This notwithstanding, the Secretary of State may already have regard to any matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision.

I therefore hope, with this explanation, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 11B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector that have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, I am disappointed that we are having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place, having been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including Battersea, Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the Government’s position, and so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced Bill, which are designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the iniquity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own home. I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat.

Let us be clear: as I said in Committee, for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation, there is likely to be only very minimal, if any, damage. The standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear, as a survey conducted in 2021 by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection concluded. In rare circumstances, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit, measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate.

This costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many. Allowing landlords to require a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks’ rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas such as London—a figure which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity, with those living in cities, where rents are higher, being far worse off compared with those living in rural areas.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear.

The pet provisions in the Bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated, both inside and outside this House. It is clear from all those discussions that the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet and that this amendment is completely unnecessary. Its only result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, we should make that dream a reality, so I am afraid that, if the noble Lord presses his Motion, I shall be voting against it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.

Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.

The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.

Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.

Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.

Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his support—I will come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

I think the responses to this part of the debate are pragmatic. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. He mentioned the Government’s change in position on pet insurance. We had an extensive debate, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We drew on the expertise of Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees. The Government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following that engagement, we concluded that we were no longer confident that the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for landlords or tenants to purchase.

In view of that, we did not want to leave tenants in a position where they could not comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having pet provisions in the Bill. I am pleased to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has indicated its support for the Government’s approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. I received just today a letter of very strong support from Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and another email from Shelter expressing its support and hope that this amendment would not be accepted, because it did not feel that it was in the interest of tenants or their pets. We used the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration.

It is important to say that, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. We have powers to allow for higher deposits for pets, if needed. We are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement of five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership. I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damage costs from the normal tenancy deposit, as they do now. In rare cases, where the deposit did not cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts, in line with the wider rules in the sector.

We do not want to put tenants in a position where they cannot have a pet because there are no suitable insurance products available or they cannot afford the additional cost of a deposit. We will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 53”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H. I speak briefly to two important possession grounds, those concerning students and carers, and I also thank the Minister for her support on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which this side of the House supported strongly.

First, on students, as your Lordships know, Amendment 53A sought to expand Ground 4A so that it also applied to one and two-bedroom properties let to students. Extending this ground would maintain essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty. This is not simply about convenience—it is about fairness and inclusion. Many of these smaller homes are occupied by students who need quieter or self-contained accommodation. Often these include those who are neurodiverse and find shared living environments particularly challenging. For them, access to such housing is not a preference, it is a necessity. To exclude these properties from Ground 4A risks creating a two-tier system that leaves the most vulnerable in our society behind. I hope the Minister, and indeed our Liberal Democrat colleagues who once spoke so passionately in defence of students, will reflect very carefully on the points I bring forward.

We have a number of case studies that illustrate the implications of this ill-conceived plan, from Cornwall and Portsmouth to Loughborough. In Portsmouth, a letting agent and Propertymark member reported very high numbers of students renting one and two-bedroom flats, accounting for 20% or 30% of their portfolio—not a small number—and those included many international students. In Loughborough, feedback from another Propertymark agent on student tenancies showed a lower number of HMO lets compared with houses and flats. The evidence flatly contradicts the Government’s claims that one and two-bedroom student properties account for only a small fraction of the market. Regional variations exist, but the pattern is clear. These homes are a substantial and vital component of the student housing sector, and by excluding them from Ground 4A, the Government risk creating a two-tier system both geographically and between students themselves, particularly those with specific or additional needs.

I turn to carers and express my strong support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As I said on Report, this amendment is tightly drawn and provides flexibility in exceptional circumstances, where a property close to home could be used to care for a loved one, enabling people to live independently and with dignity, rather than entering into the institutional care system. Propertymark has also highlighted a helpful precedent from Wales where, under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, carers can have succession rights if the tenant they care for dies. While I understand that provision does not apply to landlords’ carers, it does demonstrate that such flexibility is possible in law and can be delivered responsibly.

If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will support him. I also beg to move Motion H1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I still do not understand why a group of students is not being looked after quite the same as other students. Therefore, I urge the House to support my Motion H1 to send the Bill back to the other place with our concerns for equality in the student housing sector, with housing for students who want, indeed need, small homes. Not every student can either work or live comfortably in an HMO, and not every student can afford specific student accommodation. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am concerned about this amendment, in particular subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, because it talks about repealing primary legislation. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is getting at in trying to make legislation straightforward. That is why we have all these schedules to legislation nowadays, to try to bring that about. I fear, and I have heard on the grapevine, that the noble Lord has been advised by somebody who is now advising somebody very important in the Government and who has also made subsequent comments about how nature is getting in the way of development. While I am conscious of the positive intentions that the noble Lord seeks to achieve through the amendment, I am just flagging my concern.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing forward Amendment 356A for the consideration of the Committee today. The proposed new clause would allow for pre-consolidation amendments to be made to planning legislation in anticipation of a full future consolidation Bill. Its purpose, as I understand it, is to probe the desirability and feasibility of consolidating the extensive and at times unwieldy body of planning law. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the matter.

It comes at a timely moment. We hear that, hot on the heels of the first planning Bill, the Government may now be contemplating a second. As we have said from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, if the Government had proceeded to commence either in full or even in part the schedules and clauses already contained within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, we might well have avoided the need for yet another Bill in the first place.

That brings me to the specific questions for the Minister. Can she confirm whether there is any truth in the strong rumours circulating that a new planning Bill is indeed on its way? If so, will such a Bill aim to consolidate the many changes that have been made right across the breadth of planning law in recent years? Do the Government accept that consolidation is both needed and desirable, not least to provide clarity and certainty to practitioners, local authorities and communities alike? Finally, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered what such a consolidation process might look like and under what timescale it might realistically be delivered? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for Amendment 356A and for highlighting the merits of consolidating our planning legislation. As someone who has been on the sticky end of it for a number of years, I can absolutely see his point.

My noble friend is not the first to consider this. Indeed, the existing legislative framework provides the Government with sufficient powers to consolidate the planning legislation at an appropriate time. Specifically, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, Section 132 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provides the Secretary of State with broad and flexible powers to make regulations that amend, repeal or otherwise modify a wide range of planning-related statutes.

While we have no immediate plans to consolidate planning legislation in England, we will keep this under review, as we recognise that consolidating planning legislation could offer some benefits. Since the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the legislative framework has undergone numerous amendments, and consolidation may help to streamline and simplify the system. However, a comprehensive consolidation needs to be weighed against the risks of uncertainty and disruption, particularly at a time when the Government are prioritising targeted planning reform to drive economic growth.

Any move towards consolidation would also require substantial resources, so we would need to be confident that it has clear benefits. At this stage, we believe that targeted reform is the best way forward, but we are live to the possibilities that consolidation offers. I hope that my noble friend and other Peers with an interest in planning will continue to work with us. I therefore hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, SME builders play a very important role in the housebuilding sector of the country because they are able to build on small sites that often need to be redeveloped or are in villages or small townships. We need to encourage SME builders, because they add variety to the range of housebuilders that we rely on in this country. It does seem that, throughout this Bill, there has been too much emphasis on the major house developers—on the basis, I guess, that they are the only source of the very large numbers of housing units that the country requires.

I know that throughout the Bill the Government have attempted to support SMEs, although I am not sure that that has been sufficient. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has important points to make about SMEs. As always in planning, it is the balance—between encouraging SMEs, maybe at the expense of some of the regulations regarding environment, and relying too heavily on the major housebuilders, which will be able to cope with the growing need for consideration of environmental responsibilities. I look forward to what the Government are going to say about this; encouraging SME builders is really important.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank all noble Lords from across the House for their contributions to the Bill. Over long and often intricate debates, sometimes stretching well into the night, your Lordships have engaged with candour, with insight and with seriousness befitting the weight of these issues. The cross-party spirit of scrutiny and the diligence shown in Committee has, I believe, genuinely strengthened our deliberations.

Amendment 361, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is sound and reasonable. I shall not detain the Committee with another extended rehearsal of why Part 3 is, in our view, both damaging and unnecessary. But let me be clear: despite the Government’s determination to plough ahead with this part of the Bill, the opposition to it will only crystallise further on Report. Part 3 needs to go. At the very least, there must be an independent oversight of its administration. Without that, the concerns raised in Committee will only deepen.

The two thoughtful amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe are practical and considered proposals that go right to the heart of the issues we have debated throughout Committee. Amendment 363 would ensure that the Secretary of State updates all national policy statements before the Act can be commenced. This is vital; out-of-date national policy statements do not provide the clarity or certainty required for developers, planners or communities.

Meanwhile, Amendment 364 would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes an analysis of how each section of the Bill will affect the speed of the planning process and construction before any provisions are commenced. If the central purpose of the Bill is, as Ministers insist, to accelerate planning and speed up delivery, it is only fair to ask how it will achieve that objective in practice. Will it, for example, make any real progress towards the former Deputy Prime Minister’s target of 1.5 million new homes, a promise which, under this Government, looks ever more distant as housebuilding rates continue to decline?

I conclude by returning to the point that I made at the start of Committee. This Bill does not go far enough. It makes adjustments to processes, to roles, to fees and to training. But it leaves untouched the fundamental framework of planning—the very framework that needs serious, bold reform if we are to unlock the scale of housebuilding that this country so urgently requires. We now hear rumours of a second planning Bill to come. If that is true, what your Lordships’ House has been asked to consider is not reform but merely a prelude.

The Government have missed an opportunity with this Bill. They had the chance to set a clear vision for the planning system that delivers for communities, supports growth and tackles the housing crisis head on. Instead, they have brought forward a piecemeal piece of legislation more about tinkering at the edges than about grasping the real challenge. The Government have chosen to use up their remaining political capital on Part 3 rather than building more homes, and the Minister will soon realise that she and her department have wasted their energy on this Bill.

I repeat my thanks to all the staff in the House: the doorkeepers, the technical staff and Hansard have all had to work very hard on nights when we have sat late on this Bill, and I thank them very much for that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, before I respond to the amendment, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee debates and the meetings we have held around the Committee stage of the Bill. We have apparently spent 60 hours in the Chamber debating the Bill and covered 650 amendments. Noble Lords’ knowledge and experience have helped us to shape this important new approach to planning, growth and the environment, which has been especially valuable.

I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople who have shown great stamina and fortitude, which has been really greatly appreciated. I also thank all the outside bodies who have contributed to our debates in the House. I especially thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill. The processes in the House of Lords mean that our officials often have to work at very short notice on putting together papers for Front-Benchers. I also thank the staff of the House, who have worked often very long hours on the Bill.

I also give my personal thanks to my fellow Front-Bench government spokespeople, the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Wilson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who have supported me so ably on the Front Bench during Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for their support.

This final group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, relates to the commencement of the legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her support and encouragement of the growth agenda that the Bill is aimed at promoting. As we have made clear throughout Committee, our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will play a key role in unlocking economic growth, and we must progress to implementation as swiftly as possible to start reaping the benefits of these measures and getting shovels in the ground—including shovels operated by SME builders. My noble friend Lord Livermore yesterday quoted the fact that this Bill has already been assessed to be making a great contribution to the economic growth we all want to see.

On Amendment 363, while I commend the intent of bring all national policy statements up to date, we must resist this amendment because the clauses in the Bill already address this through the introduction of a requirement for all NPSs to be reviewed and updated at least every five years. These clauses include transitional requirements, the most stringent of which require the NPSs which were designated more than five years before the date when the clauses came into force and have not been amended, to be brought up to date within a two-year period. Delaying the commencement of the rest of the Act until such a time as all NPSs have been updated is therefore unreasonable and would have a detrimental impact on the objectives of the Bill, stalling delivery and growth in our country.

Amendment 253 also seeks to have all remaining sections of the Bill come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. Commencement regulations under this amendment are to be subject to a negative resolution. The commencement of each section of the Bill has been carefully considered with regard to the specific issue and relevant circumstances to determine whether that provision should come into force on the day the Act is passed, or a set period beginning with the day on which the Act is passed, or on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint. This bespoke consideration should not be displaced by a blanket rule requiring commencement regulations, and I do not believe there is any reasonable basis for requiring all commencement regulations to be subject to the negative procedure rather than the generally standard procedure of commencement regulations not being subject to any procedure.

Amendment 364 would require the Secretary of State to publish analysis regarding the impact of each section of the Bill on the speed of the planning process before we can commence any of its provisions. I appreciate the noble Baroness’ intentions behind this amendment, and we are aligned in that we want the Bill to have as big an impact as possible in unlocking growth and accelerating development across the country. However, we have already published a full impact assessment on the Bill, including analysis of how each measure will impact on the planning system. As I mentioned earlier, this analysis showed that the economy could be boosted by up to £7.5 billion over the next decade by this pro-growth legislation, and we should not look to delay the implementation of these clauses and the reaping of the Bill’s benefits across the planning system.

We are confident that the Bill will streamline and turbocharge planning processes. For example, our analysis of the Bill’s reforms to the pre-application stage of the NSIP regime shows that these changes could reduce the typical time projects spend in pre-application by up to 12 months. This is a dramatic acceleration of the current system and of delivery of major economic infrastructure and demonstrates clearly how the Bill will get Britain building again. With these reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 206A, 351ZA and 362 in this group, which also relate to mayoral development corporations. I am supportive of what the Minister is proposing in Amendment 186 and the related amendments. It is helpful to see that there is an established hierarchy between development corporations so that, if the Government establish a development corporation, it trumps a mayoral development corporation, in effect, while a mayoral development corporation trumps a locally led development corporation. However, my amendments raise an additional—and, I hope, helpful—issue.

Before I come on to that, let me say this: the underlying purpose of the development corporations in Part 4 of this Bill is to give mayors, through such corporations, the scope to engage in not just regeneration but development. So mayoral development corporations can be the vehicle for significant new settlements, both as urban extensions and in new sites. That is helpful, too.

Of course, what we do not have in this hierarchy of development corporations is the availability of local authorities to propose locally led development corporations on the same basis as the Government and mayors can do. That was in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but has not yet, with the exception of one of the accountability measures at the back of the section, been brought into force. Unless the Minister tells me otherwise, as I understand it, it is not the Government’s intention to bring into force the further provisions of that Act on locally led development corporations. For the avoidance of doubt, if I am wrong about that, I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us so in her response to this debate.

Members who were attentive to the running list of amendments will recall that I tabled Amendments 204 and 205 back in July. Their purpose is to give other mayors access to the same powers to establish—I should say “propose”, since the Government establish them—mayoral development corporations as are available to the Mayor of London under the Localism Act. This is not to say that mayors do not have any such powers. However, since the Localism Act, they have generally been established under statutory instruments. Some of those have given mayors similar powers to those of the Mayor of London, but there are often gaps; the time pressures on these debates does not permit me the pleasure of examining precisely which gaps have been identified and for which mayors, but that does not matter. The point is that my Amendments 204 and 205 had the objective of giving mayors—all mayors—the same powers as are available to the London mayor.

I then found, when the Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill in the other place, that Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill provided for other mayors to have the same powers as the London mayor. It struck me that, under those circumstances, there was no merit in my continuing to push Amendments 204 and 205, so I withdrew them. It further struck me that, if we provide for other mayors to have those powers under the English devolution Bill, it will run to a slower timetable than this Bill.

Therefore, Amendment 206A, which would bring into the Bill the new schedule proposed in Amendment 351ZA, is drafted in the same terms, substantially, as the Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It would have the same effect—to give mayors generally the same powers as the London mayor—but it would do so in this Bill. Instead of waiting until some time next year—a time to be determined—and given that this is the Government’s number one legislative priority and that we are going to debate into the night if we have to, we can be confident that the provision would reach the statute book this year.

Based on the past experience of the unwillingness of Ministers to bring provisions of Bills that we have passed into force, Amendment 362 requires that the provision be brought into force within two months after the passing of this Bill. Therefore, we would be looking at all mayors having the powers by the early part of next year. This is important and relevant because we are already beyond the point at which the New Towns Taskforce said that it would publish its recommendations, including sites for new towns. It said in its interim report that it would publish the final report and recommendations in the summer; it is definitely now no longer the summer. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it will do so shortly, as there is a degree of planning blight associated with their not being published. There is benefit to delivering on the objective to build more homes if we publish them sooner rather than later.

I hope that this Bill will secure Royal Assent this year—ideally, by the end of November—and that, by the end of January, with the inclusion of Amendment 206A and the proposed new schedule, the mayors will have access to those powers by the end of January.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 195A and to our probing opposition to Clause 93 standing part of the Bill.

Starting with Amendment 195A, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant in practice by the provision that allows a development corporation to

“do anything necessary … for the purposes or incidental purposes of the new town”.

How is such a wide power to be defined, limited and safeguarded in its use? I would be grateful for a clear answer on that point.

Turning to Clause 93 more broadly, I make it clear that we are supportive of development corporations. Our concern is to understand more fully how they are intended to function under the Bill and to ensure that they are established on a sound and accountable footing.

I ask the Minister how local accountability will be preserved under the changes to the development corporations, given that they already have the ability to operate across multiple non-contiguous sites, an ability that will no doubt take on greater significance with the advance of devolution. How will such corporations function in practice alongside devolution? What safeguards will be in place to avoid confusion or diluted accountability, particularly in the context of local government reorganisation? This question seems especially pressing in the light of the changes that may arise from the forthcoming English devolution Bill, which your Lordships’ House will be considering in the coming months. How will the Government ensure that the role of development corporations sits coherently alongside wider reforms to local and regional governance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that the powers in the Act relating to locally led development corporations will be brought into force, but I have committed to write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, with a full explanation. I will circulate that letter when I have published it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Minister also mentioned the money that has been put aside by the Government to support further planning, skills training et cetera. Did she say that that could be used also by development corporations? I had the understanding that it was for local government and not for development corporations.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry if I misled the noble Baroness. I meant to say that the Government recognise the issue around planning capacity. We have already allocated that £46 million for local government, and we must have the discussions with Sir Michael Lyons that recognise that we need to make sure that the capacity is there to deal with new town development corporations as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of other speakers, I am interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and will be even more interested in the Minister’s response, bearing in mind what I said in the previous group about management of risk and who underpins a development corporation in the event of financial loss.

Amendment 197 is very important. There are two issues: the automatic

“removal of hope value from the valuation of the relevant land”

proposed for development and, secondly, whether land purchases by development corporations should be seen as

“public sector investments to be counted against departmental expenditure limits”.

This amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is important and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendments. The financing of development corporations is an important issue and we will continue to engage on it. I look forward to the views of Sir Michael Lyons’s task force on the issues raised by noble Lords in this and the previous group on the financial aspects of development corporations.

We need to ensure that financing is long term and sustainable. If corporations are to take on debt to fund infrastructure, they and their lenders will need confidence that the debt will be repaid. This is a particular issue as a current Government cannot bind a future one. I will not comment on the issues in Amendment 197 as it has not been spoken to, but I assume that they will be discussed in group seven.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am amazed that no other Members of your Lordships’ House want to speak about local news and newspapers. I broadly agree with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is absolutely right that the question we have to ask ourselves is: with the sad decline, as I see it, of printed local news, how best do we make sure that important public notices, as defined in legislation, that are currently placed only in printed news outlets, get a greater reading and more information about them spread by including them in reputable or quality online news outlets?

I agree with the noble Lord that it should be both, because a number of people still read a paper version of a local newspaper. I am amazed that there are people where I live—they contact me—who read these public notices and ask, “What on earth is going on here?”, even though they are printed in font size 6 or 7, so you need a magnifying glass to read them. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has considered that public notices in the print media are very tightly printed, and how they can be accessible online. Sometimes, you get a whole page of public notices. I generally agree that we have to do something to make sure that more people have access to important information.

My understanding is that currently there is a public notice portal—public notices are gathered from the print media and put on to this portal. It would be interesting to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is thinking about enabling councils, through legislation, to choose whether to publish directly on to that public portal.

Generally, I more or less support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We have to have reform and your Lordships’ House and others have considered this in detail, so the question is how we set about it. With those remarks, I look forward to other comments on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas highlight and reaffirm the importance of local news publishers. Increasingly, these are online, but not always. Some areas still have quite successful newspapers that have print runs, sometimes daily but now often weekly, but this differs in local areas, so I think that local authorities are best placed to decide what medium they use for advertising all things planning.

On this side of the Committee, we support the existence of local news publishers across the United Kingdom. As we have heard, they serve as an important conduit between local people and their authorities and are crucial for upholding community engagement and local democracy, values which I hope all noble Lords will join me in supporting. Indeed, the importance of local news publishers is even more significant when we consider it in context of important planning and development decisions. Local people are those most affected by such decisions and it is important that their voices are heard and meaningfully listened to. Local news publishers play a vital role in making sure both that local people are represented and that the relevant information is disseminated to them. I hope that the Government will take these amendments seriously and I look forward to hearing how they will be addressed.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling these interesting amendments, which relate to the publicity of notices on compulsory purchase orders. I cannot help thinking that there is a solution to this, but perhaps not exactly this one. We have to have a think about this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, I support local news publications. I am one of the sad local government geeks who always turns straight to the public notices, not just because I want to see what my own council is doing—now that I am not there anymore—but because I want to see what the next-door councils are doing as well.

Local newspapers are an important part of the way that information is shared, but they also play an important role in supporting democracy, communicating with our residents and being a signpost to all kinds of events that are going on locally. I know that they have been through a very tough time recently. In my area, if we did not have the paper edition of the newspaper, we would probably not have an online paper either—the paper is produced online but also produced as a paper copy. It is not delivered anymore but you can pick it up in a supermarket, so it is an important part of our local life.

The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would reform the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and constrain acquiring authorities in the type of local newspaper that notices of making and confirmation of compulsory purchase orders must be published in. The type of local newspaper would have to meet certain quality and readership criteria, including possessing at least one director legally resident in the United Kingdom, employing at least one journalist not funded or operated by a government, political party or legislative institution, being subject to a code of ethical standards and demonstrating strong connections to the locality in which they operate.

The legislation currently requires acquiring authorities to publish notices of the making and confirmation of CPOs in newspapers circulating in the locality of the land included in the relevant CPO, but it does not prescribe the type of local newspaper. The Government consider that the requirement to publish notices in newspapers is an important part of the CPO process. Acquiring authorities are already motivated to ensure that notices are well publicised, because that helps them to avoid legal challenge.

However, these amendments would constrain and place unnecessary burdens on acquiring authorities when attempting to comply with the requirement to publish notices. The amendments would make it more difficult for authorities to navigate the process, increase the potential risk of legal challenges, which would result in additional costs, and delay decision-making and the delivery of benefits in the public interest. The amendments would therefore complicate and delay the CPO process further, which is contrary to the Government’s objectives.

It would be helpful if the notices could be published in a bigger font. I believe that the noble Baroness said that it is usually size 6, but it is more like size 2 in my local newspaper. Something I find helpful is taking a picture of them on my phone and then expanding that.

For all the reasons I have given, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will make just one point. While I very much agree on the necessity of accurate and supportive assessments of the needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities, alongside that, and as part of that, I hope that the needs of show people will not be forgotten. As a Member of Parliament, I had the pleasure of having quite a substantial show people site, which was developed from what was previously a Traveller site, and they were extremely good neighbours. Their needs should be taken into account. I do not want to see us in a situation where the loss of a Traveller site is treated as a detriment if, as in our case, it is converted for use by show people to come and go on a long-term basis. That actually was very successful.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this group of amendments, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. On these Benches, we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that Gypsy and Traveller communities have access to appropriate accommodation. However, we do not believe—to put it bluntly—that these amendments are the right way forward. Local authorities already have duties under existing planning and housing law to assess accommodation needs across their communities, including those of Gypsies and Travellers.

To impose further statutory duties of the kind envisaged in these amendments risks unnecessary duplication and centralisation, adding bureaucracy without improving outcomes. We believe that the better course is to ensure that the current framework is properly enforced, rather than creating new and overlapping obligations. For that reason, we cannot offer our support to these amendments; nevertheless, we look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 145, 173, 174, 175 and 176, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is a passionate advocate for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites. I was very happy to discuss this with her yesterday during the debate on Awaab’s law. We have had many meetings on the subject, which I welcome.

I completely agree with the need to ensure sufficient provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to make the distinction between show people and Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. I believe that local authorities can already make a distinction in planning terms between the two. If that is not right, I will correct that in writing. Therefore, local authorities have the ability to do that.

Amendment 145 requires the spatial development strategy to specify an amount or distribution of Traveller sites. However, under new Section 12D(5), the Bill would already allow for spatial development strategies to specify or describe housing needs for Gypsies and Travellers, provided that the strategic planning authority considers the issue to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. The new clause refers to

“any other kind of housing”

the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be part of its strategic consideration.

Amendments 173, 174, 175 and 176 seek to introduce measures into the Bill that would require an assessment of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs to inform local plans and development strategies. The amendment is unnecessary as there is an existing duty, in Section 8 of the Housing Act 1985, on local authorities to assess the accommodation needs of those people residing in, or resorting to, districts with respect to the provision of caravan sites or houseboats. This provision covers Gypsies and Travellers.

Furthermore, planning policy is already clear that local planning authorities should use a robust evidence base to establish Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs and to inform the preparation of local plans and planning decisions. In doing so, they should pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with both settled and Traveller communities and should work collaboratively with neighbouring planning authorities.

We have also committed to a further review of planning policy for Traveller sites this year, as part of which any further changes, including the need for guidance on the assessment of needs, will be considered. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that we will not be sleepwalking into these; they will be evidence based after clear consultation with all relevant bodies, including the communities themselves. As housing legislation, planning policy and the Bill already adequately support the provision of Traveller sites, I therefore ask my noble friend not to press her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and to support my noble friend Lady Hodgson in her Amendment 215. I will focus on villages.

The Committee will recall that the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the purposes of the green-belt policy, one of which—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, may not entirely agree that it is working—is to restrict the sprawl of large built-up areas. That essentially is where the London green belt really came from. Having absorbed Hampstead Heath, Dulwich Village and Wimbledon and so on, the question was: how far is this all going to go?

Let us accept that but what is interesting is that the NPPF goes on in paragraph 143(b) to say that another purpose is

“to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another”;

“towns” is the key word here. Separately, and I note it because otherwise the Minister would be on my case to refer to it, paragraph 150 says:

“If it is necessary to restrict development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt”.


I submit that that is essentially about the character of that village from landscape and related points of view, rather than anything to do with its relationship to any other settlement, or its history.

We tend to focus on the National Planning Policy Framework, but we should bear in mind that it was followed in February this year by further guidance, which in three respects looked at those purposes and tried to categorise the contributions to the purposes in various respects. It is interesting that one of the three purposes is about urban sprawl. It says that

“villages should not be considered large built-up areas”,

which seems obvious, but the point is that the guidance selects villages to be excluded from this purpose. Under “Preventing neighbourhood towns merging”, it goes on to say “towns, not villages”. In the third purpose, relating to the setting of historic towns, it says:

“This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages”.


What have historic villages done to make themselves so unpopular from this point of view? Why are historic villages not important in the same way as historic towns—and, for that matter, historic cities?

Ministers, including the Minister responding to this debate, will not recall previous debates in which I was very supportive of green-belt reviews. We had a green-belt review in Cambridge and, if we had not had one nearly 20 years ago, we would not have the Cambridge Biomedical Campus that we have today—we gave up green-belt land. I declare an interest in that I was Member of Parliament there, so I had to represent both sides of the argument, and I am currently chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, so I have skin in that game too. Nearly 20 years ago, we gave up a significant part of the green belt to enable that to happen. Subsequently, a planning application came through for development to the west side of the Trumpington Road, which would have built on to Grantchester Meadows. We resisted that, because it was not necessary to take the development across the Trumpington Road and nor was it necessary for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. The central point is that Cambridge would not be regarded as a large built-up area for this purpose, but it would have reached out and this would have meant the coalescence of Cambridge with Grantchester, a historic village. The same could apply to somewhere such as Bladon, in relation to Oxford.

This is about the coalescence of settlements and a recognition that the historic setting of a historic city, town or village should be protected. Can Ministers agree to continue to look at the definitions of towns and villages, and the way villages are being excluded from any protections, whereas towns are included? This is not an immaterial issue; it has been the subject of a number of appeals to inspectors and they have more or less said—I paraphrase—“Okay, this is a village. It is not a town and therefore it does not have protection”. There are circumstances in which villages should have protection; they have an openness of character and contribute to the green belt for landscape purposes, but in specific instances the nature of that village as a settlement should be recognised in relation to its historic role.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for raising this important issue of village and specific land protection.

We fully appreciate the intention behind seeking to make better use of underused land by the Government, but concerns remain about the potential impact of such changes on the wider countryside and, crucially, on the identity of our villages. Although this matter may not directly be in scope of the Bill, it clearly interacts with it, and I hope Ministers will continue to reflect very carefully on the balance between flexibility in planning and long-standing protections afforded to rural communities.

In particular, I draw attention to Amendment 215, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. This is an important amendment, which states:

“Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate”


to those afforded to towns. I will not go into an explanation, because that has been given clearly and concisely by my noble friend Lord Lansley. However, it is important specifically in relation to preventing villages merging into one another, and in preserving the setting and special characteristic of many of our historic villages, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

We must ensure that village identity is properly protected. Rural communities are not simply pockets of houses; they are places with history, distinctiveness and a character that contributes immeasurably to our national heritage, and to the lives of the people who live there. This is a firmly held view on these Benches. I shall not detain your Lordships’ House by rehearsing our manifesto, but we will continue to stand up for the green belt and for all our villages.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to an interesting debate. As someone who lives in a small village in the north-east of England, I found it really interesting. I am obviously concerned for personal reasons about saving the green belt and looking after historic buildings. When I look out of the window, I can see a grade 1 listed church, so I know the importance of looking after these buildings.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hodgson, for their amendments, which arise, I suspect, as much from our revision of green-belt policy in the National Planning Policy Framework as from the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we published the updated framework last December. The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least by checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another.

Amendment 157 would require local authorities to identify land that contributes towards the green-belt purposes, and, once this land is designated as green belt, prevent any development of such land for a minimum of 20 years.

Planning policy is already clear on the ability of local authorities to establish green belts, and provides strong protections against development on green-belt land. As I have mentioned, our revised National Planning Policy Framework maintains these strong protections and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. The framework also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.

However, we know that brownfield land alone will never be enough to meet needs. This is why the revised framework continues to recognise the limited circumstances in which the use of some green-belt land for development may be justified and allow for the alteration of green-belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances.

A new requirement to prevent any development on designated green belt or alterations to green-belt boundaries for 20 years would limit authorities’ ability to respond to changing circumstances. It would override the discretion of the local community to discuss and consider whether existing green-belt land is still serving the purposes of green belt, and how and where to allow new homes or other essential development in sustainable locations.

Amendment 215 would require the issuing or updating of guidance for local planning authorities to restrict the development of villages. I make clear that neither our green-belt reforms nor the green-belt guidance make any change to the long-standing green-belt purposes, which include preventing the merging of towns and safeguarding the setting and special character of historic towns. Our guidance is clear that, when identifying grey belt, it is the contribution land makes to the relevant purposes that should be considered.

This reflects the fact that the fundamental aim of green-belt policy is, rightly, preventing urban sprawl, with an explicit focus on larger built-up areas and towns. The guidance does not remove appropriate and relevant green-belt protections from land around villages. It makes clear that any green-belt land, including land in or near villages, which contributes strongly to the relevant purposes should not be identified as grey belt.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Will the planning policy be changed to include villages? At the moment the protection is for urban areas, not rural areas. If the Government continue to look at changing green belt to grey belt, surely there should be further protection for villages to stop them being coalesced together.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I hope to address that in a little bit—the noble Baroness may think that I will not, but that is the intention.

Local authorities continue to have various other ways to manage development in villages, and neither the Bill nor our policy reforms exclude the consideration of matters such as the character of a village or the scale and style of development, where relevant, in planning determinations. For instance, a local plan may designate local green space safe from inappropriate development or recognise a Defra-registered village green. Historic village character can also be preserved by using conservation area policies, neighbourhood planning, local listing of important buildings or local design guidance.

As planning policy already sets out adequate and appropriate protection from and support for development relating to villages, both inside and outside the green belt, I do not believe this amendment seeking to use green-belt protections to restrict development in villages is appropriate. Neither of these amendments is necessary to protect the green belt or the character of villages, and their statutory nature would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop sound strategies and make the decisions necessary to ensure new homes and jobs in the right places. I therefore ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is about “having regard to”. We have had that debate on other groups.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that everybody would be in favour of this. I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling Amendment 166 and bringing this important issue before the House. The principle of proportionality deserves to stand alone in this debate, for it goes directly to the heart of the speed, efficiency and accuracy of our planning system.

As ever, my noble friend has presented the case with his customary clarity and intellectual weight; I thank him for that. He has shown that this principle is not only desirable, but essential. His amendment would embed proportionality firmly within the planning process, giving decision-makers, applicants, consultees and indeed the courts confidence that less can sometimes be more. It would allow for decision-making that is sharper in focus and public participation that is clearer and more effective.

I accept that this is a technically complicated clause, but it is also a vital one. At its core, it states that the information and evidence required to determine any planning application should be proportionate to the real issues at stake, taking into account decisions already made at the plan-making stage and recognising where issues could be dealt with later, whether through planning conditions, obligations or other forms of regulation. It is important to be clear about what this amendment would not do. It would not dilute or weaken the responsibility of local planning authorities to justify their decisions, particularly when refusing or withholding planning permission. Rather, it would ensure that planning does not become mired in an endless accumulation of unnecessary reports, assessments and duplications that add little value but cause delay and frustration.

That is why this apparently technical definition is in fact deeply needed reform. It would be a practical safeguard against a system that too often risks becoming paralysed by its own complexity. If we are serious about unblocking progress and enabling the timely delivery of new homes—1.5 million in the next three and a half or four years—and, with them, the wider infrastructure and investment our communities require, principles such as this must be at the heart of a modern planning system. The Government would do well to accept this amendment. In doing so, they would signal that they are not just merely managing a process but are serious about reforming it, serious about tackling the barriers that hold us back and serious about delivering the homes and the growth that this country so urgently needs.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendment 166, regarding proportionality in the planning system, ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I thank him for bringing it forward. It seeks

“to give decision-makers, applicants, consultees and the Courts confidence that”

in the planning system

“less can be more”.

We agree with this sentiment. If we are to meet the 1.5 million homes target, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has just outlined, the planning system needs to operate more effectively and with greater certainty. Of course, the problem here is that although the noble Lord described it as reality and pragmatism, unfortunately one man or woman’s reality and pragmatism will be somebody else’s dystopian nightmare, so we have to be a bit careful about how we move forward.

We all know that planning has got much more complex and litigious, which has led many local planning authorities to take a precautionary approach when preparing local plans and dealing with planning applications. This is why we too want to see a more proportionate approach to planning. However—and this is where, unfortunately, we disagree with the noble Lord—we feel that introducing a new statutory principle of proportionality across all of planning is not the way to achieve this. This itself would introduce a new legal test, which risks more opportunities for legal challenge and grounds for disagreements—points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lady Andrews. Instead, we believe it is better to promote proportionality through national planning policy and by looking at specific opportunities to streamline procedures through regulatory reform.

The Bill already includes important reforms to achieve this, including the nationally significant infrastructure projects reforms and the creation of the nature restoration fund. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, issues concerning SME builders and how to support them are under very serious consideration, including the large package of financial support that the Government have already announced, and we will continue to consider what more might be done in that regard. We are also doing much more alongside the Bill—for example, scaling back the role of statutory consultees through our review of those bodies, and examining whether there should be a new medium development category where policy and regulatory requirements would be more proportionate, as we recently set out in our site thresholds working paper. For all the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Banner for raising this issue through Amendment 169. His last point was that this is the second piece of planning legislation since the Hillside judgment in 2022. The earlier legislation was the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. My noble friend was not in your Lordships’ House at the time of its consideration but he will no doubt have noted that Section 110 of the Act provides for the insertion of new Section 73B into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the purpose of which is to say that material variations are permitted, as long as they are not substantially different from the original permission.

What reading the legislation will not tell him is that, during the course of the debate on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I introduced an original amendment, the purpose of which was to restore the law to the Pilkington principle—in effect that overlapping permissions would be lawful, as long as the subsequent permission sought did not render the original permission no longer physically capable of being implemented. My noble friend on the Front Bench, then the Minister, may recall that the Government at the time did not accept it, but did accept that they should legislate. There is a difference between Section 110 and the Pilkington principle. There are, in practice, quite a lot of cases in which the permission that is sought does not render the original permission incapable but would substantially amend the original permission, and does not meet the narrow test of being not substantially different from the original permission.

It was not all that I was looking for but it was considerable progress in the right direction. It was important, because a judgment subsequent to Hillside, as my noble friend will recall, said that the original planning permissions in these cases were not severable. You cannot go in, take some part of an original permission and amend it, and treat the rest of the permission as being valid. The whole permission needs to be sought all over again, which is exactly what has caused a substantial part of the problem that my noble friend has benefitted from, in the professional sense, because there are so many such permissions that would otherwise have to be sought all over again.

I agree with my noble friend that something more needs to be done. I happen not to agree with his drafting of Amendment 169. We would be better off saying of overlapping permissions that, where the later permission does not render the original permission wholly incapable of being implemented, it would remain lawful, otherwise you run the risk of inconsistent, overlapping planning permissions, which is not a place we wish to get to. It would also be entirely helpful if the amendment to be introduced would make it clear that, for the purposes of this, the original planning permission is severable—you can have a drop-in permission.

I hope my noble friend would agree with all of that. More to the point, I hope Ministers will agree that we have not solved this problem. In particular, we have not solved the problem as Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, bringing in the new Section 73B, has not been brought into force. I have asked this question before and had a positive answer, and so I hope it is the Government’s intention to bring Section 110 into force, and I hope that can be done soon. At the same time, I suggest that my noble friend comes back to this issue on Report and perhaps brings us an amendment capable of amending the new Section 73B to restore the Pilkington principle and enable planning permissions that would otherwise relate to the same overall red line to be severable for the purposes of a material change in planning permissions.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for bringing to our attention the practical implications of the Hillside judgment within Amendment 169 today. These are complex issues, but his amendment shines a clear light on the risks to developers and local authorities alike, and the potential chilling effect on much-needed projects. It is precisely at moments like these that the Government should lean on the wisdom and experience of noble Lords who understand the realities of these issues on the ground.

We have had the benefit of meeting my noble friend Lord Banner privately to discuss these matters in detail. That conversation was extremely valuable in setting out the issues so clearly, and we are grateful for his time and expertise. We will continue to work with him to ensure that these concerns are properly addressed. I very much hope the Minister will give a positive and constructive reply and that the concerns raised today will be fully taken into account.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the great benefits of being in your Lordships’ House is that every day is a school day and you learn something new. I had no idea there was anything like a reverse declaration of interests, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Banner, just made, in saying that he is going to lose out if this amendment is taken into account.

This is a highly technical amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, for his explanations of the background to the case and for setting it in a context which made it a little easier to understand. I am grateful for the amendments around the Hillside Supreme Court judgment.

Amendments 169 and 185SB are technical but important amendments about overlapping consents. Amendment 169 seeks to address the implications of the Hillside judgment in relation to overlapping planning permissions. It seeks in particular to enable the carrying out of a development under an initial permission when an overlapping permission has been implemented, making it physically impossible for the first permission to be carried out.

Amendment 185SB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, focuses on overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders. The Government recognise that the Hillside judgment and subsequent court decisions have caused concerns across the development sector, and the noble Lord was kind enough to send me some of the articles that have been written since, setting out which problems they are causing. It has made it more challenging to use the practice of drop-in permissions to deal with changes in development proposals for plots on large-scale residential and commercial development in response to changing circumstances. There have been concerns about the implications for the implementation of development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects when planning permissions have been used to deal with minor variations.

We want to ensure that large-scale developments, where they need to change, can secure the necessary consents to deal with these changes effectively and proportionately. Unfortunately, we are not persuaded that Amendment 169 is the solution to Hillside for overlapping planning permissions. It is too broad in scope, and we must be absolutely sure that it would not undermine the integrity of the planning system. The long-standing principle that Hillside endorsed—that it is unlawful to carry out a development when another permission makes it physically impossible to carry it out—is a sound one. Decisions are made on the merits of the entire development proposal, and this amendment would allow developers to pick and choose what parts of an approved development they wanted to implement when they had a choice.

Similarly, we need to consider carefully the implications of legislating to deal with overlapping planning permissions and development consent orders in general terms. While I understand the desire for certainty, there is more flexibility through a development consent order to deal with the overlap with planning permissions.

That said, I emphasise again that, as a Government committed to ensuring that the planning system supports growth, we are keen to ensure that the right development can be consented and implemented quickly. We want to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to deal with change to large-scale developments. Clause 11 already provides a framework for a more streamlined and proportionate process to change development consent orders, but we also want to look at how the framework can be improved for planning permissions. We would welcome further discussions with your Lordships and the wider sector on this matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for pointing out issues around Section 110 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I need to revisit our correspondence to refresh my mind on what we said about that, but his point about restoring the law to the Pilkington principle is noted and I am sure we will come back to this.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for tabling Amendment 227F and for his continued commitment to energy security and net-zero objectives. This amendment seeks to create a statutory timeframe of 10 weeks for decisions to be made on compulsory purchase orders made under the Electricity Act 1989. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030 and it is clear that rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. We recognise the importance of providing all parties with a clear understanding of likely timelines to support project planning and investment decisions but do not consider the imposition of statutory deadlines for processing applications to be the best way to achieve this.

The process required for a CPO varies depending on the features of each case, which means that different types of case require different timescales. Guidance from MHCLG already includes indicative timings for the determination of CPOs in England. These range from four to 24 weeks, depending on the case and the process required. Using shorter deadlines to speed up a process is like passing a law that outlaws any delay in your journey up the motorway. That might sound appealing—especially if, like me, you have to travel on the M25 quite regularly—but, if something needs to be done more quickly, one must first find out what things are causing it to take the time that it takes and then address those issues. Otherwise, one is simply legislating in a way that says: “Do it faster”.

I know that, as a former Minister in DESNZ responsible for planning decisions, my noble friend will recognise that what is really needed are system reforms and simplifications, a more efficient digital case handling system and more capacity. I am delighted to confirm that the Government are already delivering on all three of these things. We are treating the disease, not just the symptom.

I have listened carefully to all the arguments put forward today and can assure noble Lords that we share the aim of ensuring that all processes for CPOs proceed as expeditiously as possible. I hope, for these reasons, that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel that I have been reprieved on this amendment. I will do my best to keep it short, although it is a bit technical. It is a proposed new clause. The Front Bench will be relieved to know that none of my supporters can be here; they are all in far better places and having a much better time, which will definitely cut down the time taken on this.

The amendment is supported and was mainly drafted by the Heritage Alliance, which represents 200 of the heritage bodies in the country. It is a very weighty amendment that has been extremely well thought-through by the umbrella body for the heritage sector. Who could resist an amendment drafted by such a public-spirited body? It is also in the spirit of the Bill. It is about freeing up growth and innovation through housing, public services and more besides. The clinching argument is that it would bring out-of-date legislation into current policy, guidance and best practice. I think the Minister can only commend this amendment, because it would bring clarity and confidence across the whole field of heritage and planning.

Briefly, national heritage planning policy is based throughout on the principle of conservation, defined in the NPPF, which we have heard about a lot on this Bill, as:

“The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and, where appropriate, enhances its significance”.


The definition goes back decades. It was pioneered in America and we incorporated it into English Heritage’s conservation principles when I had the privilege of being its chair in 2012. It was incorporated into the NPPF in that year too. It has meant in practice that conservation has become the lodestar of heritage practice, encouraging and enabling the repurposing of historic buildings into working spaces for today’s students, crafts men and women, housing families and organisations, while retaining the character of those post-industrial towns and their buildings which means so much.

Anybody who has watched “The Great Pottery Throw Down” will know Middleport Pottery, which was rescued at the very last minute, supported by the King, and restored to all its glory. There is the marvellous work on St John’s, at Waterloo, which has kept its extraordinary heritage and community activities and so on. There are hundreds of outstanding examples. Were the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, here, he would talk about historic farm buildings and the contribution they make to the continuing character and vitality of the countryside.

What needs changing? Lurking in the planning legislation is a residual leftover from another age, when the object of heritage was to preserve and not conserve. Let me explain. The concept of preservation dates back to the 19th century, well before there was any consciousness of what historic buildings might be used for. There was then a binary choice: knock it down and lose it or preserve it. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 was the attempt to provide legal protection for the first time. That concept of preservation against loss prevailed for a century and it remains at the heart of the planning system. In the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 there is still a legal presumption in favour of preservation. This amendment seeks to bring planning policy and guidance into line and substitute the phrase “conserving or enhancing” for “preserving” in each of the relevant subsections.

Why is it urgent to do this now? Every listed building consent and planning decision near any listed building, and every planning decision in England’s 10,000 conservation areas, must explicitly give special regard to “preservation”, not “conservation”. Planning law overrides and outranks policy and guidance, so this planning legislation can have a chilling effect on imagination, innovation, and the creative use of rare and useful buildings, working against the possibility of housing, public services, leisure and much else.

This is not some nit-picking attempt to tidy up legislation. Heritage is not a peripheral issue in planning. We are an old country, with lots of stuff, and a third of planning applications involve heritage. But heritage is now so often seen, and can be seen in the Bill, as blocking change—a lazy reaction. At a time when we are looking for economic growth, and growth in housing and services, this prejudice prevents the right sort of change and growth. It is bad for the past and bad for the future.

Take town centres, for example—which our Select Committee recently looked at. They are robbed of their original purpose and yet still recognisable in the churches, civic buildings and law courts which make up the heart of the community. They may have lost their original purposes but they are immensely useful buildings which can transform community engagement. They are ripe for repurposing for local authority services, diagnostic medical centres, craft workshops and galleries —all it needs is imagination and the change in the law that we are proposing in this amendment. Historic England estimated that 670,000 new homes could be created in England alone by repairing and repurposing existing historic buildings.

This is an obvious and timely change to make and is extremely discreet. It is a very limited amendment and would have no damaging implications for any other form of legislation. It would simply remove the inconsistency between heritage policy and heritage legislation by using the same terminology in both and ensuring that heritage becomes part of the wealth of the future as well as the past. I really hope the Minister will support this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, heritage assets, as we have heard, are not simply buildings or sites of historic interest; they are living reminders of who we are, where we come from and the values we wish to pass on. Turning to the amendments before us, in Amendment 172 the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raises an important and interesting issue—the inconsistency, as I understand it, between heritage policy and heritage legislation. I am keen to hear the Government’s reflections on this matter and whether they believe that an amendment of this kind is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the system. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and I would love a conversation about this with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.

Turning to a series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as he so often does, he has raised some significant, thought-provoking issues. We worked tirelessly on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act. Anything that helps to get on with the commencement of some of the key aspects of that legislation would be most welcome. In that context, Amendment 182, on the commencement of provisions concerning the duty to have regard to heritage assets in planning functions, is of particular importance. Ensuring that heritage is properly taken into account in planning decisions is a safeguard for the future as much as a means of showing respect for the past.

We also hear what my noble friend says in Amendment 185C, which proposes that national listed building consent orders under Section 26C of the 1990 Act be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That seems a practical suggestion, and I hope the Government and the noble Baroness will consider it carefully. Heritage is, after all, not about blocking change but about managing it well and ensuring that the past informs and enriches the future. These amendments, in different ways, all seek that balance model.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their amendments. Amendment 172 would align the terminology of the listed buildings Act with that of the National Planning Policy Framework. It also seeks to encourage desirable change which will benefit our heritage assets. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, the use of the word “preserve” in heritage legislation is long standing and supported by case law. Case law, in particular, has emphasised that if a decision-maker follows the policies protecting designated heritage assets in the NPPF, including giving greater weight to their conservation, it will have discharged its duty to have special regard to the preservation of a listed building. I am wary, therefore, of changing the wording to “conserve”, as doing so might create more uncertainty and lead to further legal challenge when the position is settled in case law.

As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which are the subject of Amendment 182 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seek to introduce the term “enhancing” into heritage legislation. My noble friend Lady Taylor has met with the heritage organisations and the DCMS once in the past, and we are committed to meeting them again before Report.

I now turn to Amendments 182 and 183, which both seek to commence provisions in the 2023 Act. I reassure the Committee that the Government have not forgotten about these provisions. We are continuing to consider our approach to heritage planning policy in the context of the wider planning reforms, including further revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework. We will keep implementation of the 2023 Act heritage measures under review as part of that work.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 185C, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which would make national listed building consent orders subject to the negative procedure. My noble friend Lady Andrews, especially, but perhaps also other long-serving Members, will recall that it was the intention of Parliament that national listed building consent orders be subject to the affirmative procedure. This was largely in response to concerns raised about the power and breadth of discretion given to the Secretary of State.

The noble Baroness commented during the debates on the 2013 Act:

“There is concern that a general national class consent order, saying something about the works that could be done to listed buildings without consent, could not conceivably be so sensitive that it did not have some perverse or damaging consequences”.—[Official Report, 14/11/12; col. 1545.]


Therefore, we need to be very cautious about changing the procedure to the negative procedure without significant engagement with the heritage sector and others. With these explanations, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.

Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments.

The first of these instruments follows the tragic death of two year-old Awaab Ishak in 2020, a deeply distressing case with which I am all too familiar. My heart goes out to his family, who have been fighting this case for almost five years. Awaab lost his life due to prolonged exposure to mould in his family’s social housing. Awaab’s family and parents did all they could to get the local social housing provider to deal with the problems, to no avail. His death serves as a stark and painful reminder of the devastating consequences that follow when serious hazards in social housing are unaddressed.

This statutory instrument seeks to implement part of Awaab’s law, introduced under the previous Government through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. It sets time-bound legal duties on landlords to investigate hazards, communicate with tenants in writing and resolve issues within set deadlines.

This is a welcome legal framework, but it begs serious questions. Most urgently, why has it taken so long? When we were in government, our intention was to act, and we were planning to bring in these protections by autumn 2024, following the consultation. At that time, we were already in dialogue with people in the social housing sector, many of whom had proactively begun updating their internal procedures to reflect the law’s requirements. Indeed, in my experience, housing associations and local authorities were already taking steps to improve how they handled damp and mould complaints, introducing clear communication strategies and triaging cases based on vulnerability and risk.

I ask the Minister directly: why has it taken until September 2025 for this instrument to be brought forward, when the tragedy that prompted it occurred in 2020 and the consultation concluded earlier this year? Why have the Government allowed yet another winter to pass without these protections being fully operational?

On 22 October 2024, I pressed the Minister on that exact point. I asked, quite reasonably, when they would introduce the secondary legislation, and I was told by the Minister at the time that regulations would be laid in autumn 2024. Yet here we are, nearly a year later, and the family of Awaab Ishak are still waiting.

My concerns are further compounded by the phased implementation timetable, which delays until 2027 the application of some of these protections to other serious hazards such as excessive cold, heat, fire and poor hygiene. Why must we wait until 2027? Are we really prepared to accept that vulnerable children will spend the next two winters in dangerous houses, exposed to hazards that the Government already recognise as life-threatening?

Again I ask the Minister: why have the Government chosen to delay full implementation by nearly two years, when the sector has already had time to prepare and families cannot afford to wait? I note that, in last year’s exchange, the Minister said that

“we want to get this done as fast as possible. No one should ever have to lose a child because of the condition of their home”.—[Official Report, 22/10/24; col. 511.]

Those were strong and welcome words. But actions matter more than rhetoric, and I respectfully must say that this timeline does not reflect that urgency.

My last question for the Minister on this instrument is: how will the Government ensure that social landlords will communicate these changes to their tenants? If tenants do not know, tenants cannot do anything about it.

Turning to the second instrument before us, on the extension of electrical safety standards to the social rented sector, this too is welcome. It brings social housing in line with the regulations that have applied in the private rented sector since 2020. It requires all landlords, private and social, to carry out electrical inspections at least every five years, issue safety reports to tenants and complete remedial works within 28 days. The inclusion of electrical equipment through in-service testing, formally known as PAT, is particularly welcome and an important step.

However, I must again return to the timeline. The Charter for Social Housing Residents, published in 2020, promised action. A working group was formed and a consultation was launched in 2022, but only now, three years later, do we see regulations laid. I look to the Minister for justification on this.

In closing, I want to reiterate that this is not a question of politics; it is a matter of justice, of decency and of delivering a promise made not just to the Ishak family but to all tenants who have been suffering in silence. I commend the intent behind these regulations, but I honestly urge the Government to show the urgency that this situation demands. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses for their thoughtful contributions today, and I again express my gratitude to Awaab’s family for their tireless campaigning in reaching this point, as well as to the organisations and campaigners that have supported them.

I am very pleased to note the general support for the intention of these two sets of regulations and our work to improve the quality of all housing, but I will respond to the important points that have been made by noble Baronesses.

To start with my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s comments, I expect she knows the answer that I am going to give her, but that does not mean that I care any less than I have when I have had meetings with her. I pay tribute to her constant advocacy for the Gypsy and Traveller community. It is very lucky to have such an eloquent champion, and it has been a pleasure to speak to her and discuss the issues with her.

As my noble friend said in her speech, caravans are not buildings according to the definitions set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 or the Housing Act 2004, and it is the Government’s position that Awaab’s law will not extend to Gypsies and Travellers living permanently in caravans on sites with amenity blocks that are rented from social landlords. We expect local councils to ensure that amenity blocks provided on local authority-managed sites are safe and healthy. But I want to continue to engage with my noble friend, and with the groups that I know she is very connected with, on the issues affecting those in non-traditional tenures. I hope that she will be happy to do that, because I want to move this on from where we are at the moment.

There was the quite justified challenge on why this has taken so long. The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, both challenged on that. I have had just about a year on this, but it has been in the pipeline for much longer than that. Of course, we wanted to get these changes absolutely right. We have taken time to closely consult and engage directly with social housing landlords and social tenants. It is critical that the requirements we set in legislation are effective and deliver the best long-term outcomes for social housing tenants.

Following the coroner’s report, the Government published comprehensive guidance on the health impacts of damp and mould in September 2023, when the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was the Minister. Awaab’s law will come into force for emergency hazards, damp and mould on 27 October, and we will bring forward further legislation to address other significant hazards in 2026 and 2027. I understand the frustrations about those dates, but it is important that we get these instruments right, so that we can see what the impact is and do not have to come back to the subject.

This Government are committed to driving better outcomes for tenants and ensuring that people can be proud to live in social housing. I want to do as much as we can to reduce the stigma that some social housing tenants feel as well.

Introducing these requirements in a phased way allows us to test with tenants and landlords how phase 1 is working before we move on to phases 2 and 3. This will help us to get this right and deliver legislation that will have a lasting legacy for social tenants. We are clear that Awaab’s law will apply to a wider set of hazards over time, to protect tenants regardless of the cause. There is no excuse for social landlords to ignore hazards while we are in the process of phasing in these requirements. They must continue to meet their duties to keep their homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards and to remedy disrepair.

Social landlords must also ensure that their homes meet the decent homes standard. It is critical that they take action against any issues in their homes as soon as possible to guarantee the safety and comfort of their residents. Not only do I take this very seriously but so does the social housing regulator, which comes within my area of responsibility in the department. We are not saying, “You don’t need to worry about this until 2026 and 2027”; we want action to be taken immediately, and we will work on the legislation in the meantime.

In response to the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about protections before Awaab’s law is fully rolled out, as I said, it is critical that landlords take action on any issues in their homes as soon as possible to guarantee the safety and comfort of their residents. Awaab’s law establishes timeframes for social landlords to act and, once in force, will be enforceable through the courts. But social landlords are already required to keep their social homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards and to remedy disrepair. Social landlords should be preparing for phase 1 of Awaab’s law—I know that many of them are; I talk to them regularly and they have been working on this for some time—and laying the groundwork for phase 2. They must not compromise on meeting their existing obligations in the meantime. Social landlords must also ensure that their homes meet the decent homes standard.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of communication with tenants. It is important, once this instrument has passed, that we write to all social landlords, stressing the importance of communicating to their tenants what these changes mean for them. I will take that on board and write to social landlords myself to tell them what the impacts of the instrument are.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, rightly raised the issue of the responsibility on social tenants to raise issues with their landlords. One of the things I did when I first took responsibility for the social housing regulator was to talk to it about how it looks at tenant engagement. It is really critical. Last week or the week before, I had a meeting with a tenant’s voice organisation to work on how we might have a national voice for tenants. Every individual landlord must have the appropriate channels through which their tenants can communicate with them. If social landlords fail to fulfil their legal duties, it is important that tenants have a legal route to make things right.

Seeking redress through the courts is not the only way in which residents can challenge their landlords for breaches of Awaab’s law, and I realise that that might be something of an intimidating process for social tenants. Residents can complain to their landlord and then to the Housing Ombudsman if they are unhappy with the outcome. The ombudsman is a free service and has the power to order landlords to undertake repairs and pay compensation to the tenant. Legal aid is available for housing disrepair claims when there is a serious risk of illness or injury, subject to a financial means and merits test. I should also comment—all three of us have been councillors—that for any social tenant who is concerned about their housing conditions, their councillors are also there to support them and are able to direct them to the right source in order to complain about the condition of their housing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also raised the issue about the quantum of social housing. She will know that the Government have already taken steps to address the right to buy and we are consulting on further steps this year. She will have heard me say previously that I was pleased about the allocation in the spring of £39 billion to improve the quantum of social and affordable housing. That comes on top of the £800 million that we have already allocated for in-year provision of social and affordable housing. We will be publishing the prospectus for bids for social housing in the near future. It is not going to solve the problem overnight but it will at least make a start on delivering some more social housing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also raised the issue of PAT testing—I understand that engineers are not keen on that term now, but I will use it because I think everyone knows what it means. Sadly, in the case of Grenfell, a fridge caused the issues. Social landlords are much more likely to own large multi-occupied buildings such as tower blocks and must test any electrical appliances that they provide as part of a tenancy. Private landlords are recommended to regularly carry out appliance testing on any electrical appliance they provide and then supply the tenant with a record of any electrical inspections carried out as good practice. Landlords may also consider registering products with a registration scheme but this is a complicated issue because, for most social landlords, properties are rented unfurnished. But there are some circumstances—supported housing, for example, and some types of Housing First-type accommodation for the homeless—where electrical equipment may be provided as part of the tenancy. So it is important that we provide an approach that allows for all those circumstances.

I will look at Hansard and make sure I have not missed any of the questions that I have been asked.

To conclude, Awaab’s law puts in place clear protections for tenants by making sure that dangerous damp, mould and emergency hazards are addressed quickly, and the draft electrical safety regulations will ensure that all landlords have to meet robust standards of electrical safety so that tenants can feel safe in their homes. These regulations are part of the Government’s wider quality reform package, which will ensure that every social housing resident has access to the safe and decent homes that they deserve. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this work over all the years in which it has been going on.