Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Lord Blencathra

Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we seem to be in the extraordinary position where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has now brought forward a series of large new clauses and amendments. On the one hand, he has admitted that the Bill is fundamentally flawed, yet, on the other hand, he is threatening to drive it through via the Parliament Act. Doing so would mean driving through a Bill that he now admits is fundamentally flawed and needs amendments. Am I seeing something illogical there?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make one point on behalf of silent Back-Benchers across the House. If we are not actively speaking to amendments, the only opportunity to express a view about the elements of the Bill will be when we get to vote. On the current progress, we are never going to get to that point. Personally, I feel very disenfranchised by that. I wonder whether there is a way we can get to a point where the House as a whole—every individual one of us—can express a view, in order for us not to be disenfranchised.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Young of Old Scone and Lord Blencathra

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 148 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing it so clearly. It is quite a modest little amendment because all it asks is that, within six months, the Government publish draft regulations that would address a number of issues that have been of concern to several folks around the House, as well as external audiences. It is about a set of important issues that can give assurance that the Bill will definitely deliver, both for the environment and for development.

The Government have already given a bit of clarification on the requirements laid out in this amendment, with some very useful but limited government amendments being tabled after the Commons stages of the Bill. We have had assurances that irreplaceable habitats would be unlikely to meet the overall improvement test. We have had assurances that the environmental principles are already captured through drafting and various government amendments. We have had reference to the Secretary of State meeting the environmental principles policy statement as an alternative to the mitigation hierarchy. However, there were also other downsides in the comments made by the Minister in Committee.

For example, on whether measures need to be put in place in particular circumstances before a site is developed, I was rather concerned that it was said that that might be the case in instances where habitats or species are rare or fragile. You would think that if habitats or species are that rare or that fragile, we probably ought to be using the mitigation hierarchy to avoid doing damage to those really important areas. The Minister was clear that the Government would not require developers to use the mitigation hierarchy to do that very important thing: to try to avoid damage to the most important sites and to direct development to sites of rather less importance. That is fundamental if the Bill is to deliver both for the environment and for development.

The Minister very kindly had a drop-in session on EDPs, during which I asked whether we might see guidance and draft secondary legislation before Third Reading. Actually, I asked whether we would see it before Report, but I got a stout rebuttal at that point. It is really important that if there is a need for clarity, as I believe there is on the sorts of issues that are in Amendment 148, we see as much as possible of what will be in the guidance before we have to finally press the button on the Bill, because at the moment we are buying a bit of a pig in a poke.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 148. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has said, it is a modest but sensible little amendment with broad support, as we have seen tonight from all sides of the House. It deals with many of the concerns raised by Members from all Benches, including covering a number of amendments that we on these Benches have tabled.

I see no need to speak at length. I know there is some suggestion that this could be an adequate solution to the ills of Part 3. I am afraid it does not go far enough in that regard, but it could be part of the solution. That is why I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that if she intends to move it to a vote, the Official Opposition will support her. If she does not wish to vote on it tonight, we will need to return to this at Third Reading and discuss it further.