Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak specifically to Amendment 84, to which I have added my name, although I support many of the amendments in this group.

We know how important public green spaces are to communities, and for nature, and that there is widespread public support for their protection. That is why, as I understand it, registered parks and gardens, along with battlefields, were given protection in the town and country planning order 2015. I thank the Gardens Trust for its briefings on this, and the Minister and her office for a helpful meeting and correspondence about it.

At the moment, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said, registered parks and gardens are not considered statutory heritage assets, which would make them part of the same process as listed buildings. Instead, they have their own process of consultation, with Historic England as the statutory consultee for battlefields and grade 1 and grade 2* parks and gardens, and the Gardens Trust dealing with grade 2 parks and gardens, which is 65% of them. Importantly, three-quarters of registered public parks are grade 2, so the Gardens Trust is tasked with looking after most of our public parks.

The Gardens Trust appears to do this very efficiently. From its statistics, we see that it was consulted 1,842 times last year, and that 99% of the time it responded within the agreed deadline. It voiced an objection to planning in only 6.6% of its responses. Its government grant for fulfilling this consultee role—for giving bespoke responses to planning inquiries, on time and with expertise—was £43,963.

Clearly, there is no way that anyone else within the planning system could deliver this expertise for less money and with any greater time efficiency, and there is no evidence that it is causing a major blockage to housebuilding. Actually, not having heard of the Gardens Trust before this matter arose, I thank the charity for its service to this country and its public parks.

I understand that the Government are considering removing the Gardens Trust’s statutory consultee role—the slightly bespoke role that was created for registered parks, gardens and battlefields. We all, however, appreciate the work that it does, so this amendment aims to protect this service while making the administrative process simpler. It would put registered parks and gardens into the same planning process as other heritage assets, where there is an existing and well-understood statutory consent process, whereby the Gardens Trust would be the amenity society that would be notified if there were planning proposals that might affect registered parks and gardens, or, importantly, their settings.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has Amendment 109 coming up, which I believe would have a similar effect by commencing Section 102 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, in which this area of planning was already tidied up. That might be an alternative to this amendment. None the less, it would be very helpful if the Minister, in her response to this group, could indicate the Government’s intentions on making best use of the efficient role that the Gardens Trust plays in helping give advice on our much-loved grade 2 parks and gardens and their settings.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 107 in this group—I appreciate that I am jumping a little down the line.

I tabled the amendment because, at the moment, we are removing consultation from the planning process—or removing as much of it as possible—for the sake of efficiency. Sports fields are the most attractive things for a planner to see: a piece of reasonably flat and well-drained land. What better to put a house on? If we are to lose our sports fields, we will lose an asset that keeps on giving.

I thank both Ministers on the Front Bench for meeting me privately to try to convince me that I did not have much to worry about—but for all their courtesy and time, I have failed to be convinced. As I said, it is just so tempting for local authorities—or for anyone else involved—to say, “Let’s put a house on this sports field”. Some are, of course, owned by councils or schools, and schools can get rid of them as they have more independence now.

Can we protect sports fields? If we do not have somewhere to play a sport, that sport dies or becomes unavailable to a particular group. If some sports clubs own their own pitches, they may not own enough space to have a second or a third team. If you get rid of your second or third team, the first team is under threat and thus the existence of the entire club. It is that simple. There is that much pressure. If they do not get people involved every week, those people will do something else—they will leave—and we will lose this asset.

Community sport is one of the best community builders, because members are involved not just in exercise but in a community of its own that feeds into other communities. Let us remember that people who want to make sure that they can play the game will sit on committees and take on the legal responsibility of being a secretary or a treasurer for these groups. Everybody who has run a political party will know that people are just dying to do these roles all the time—are they not? Everybody really wants to have the legal responsibilities and the bank accounts—do they not? People do this willingly—well, they do it—to make sure they can get out there and play the game. These sports facilities allow that to happen. If we take away the defence of sports fields, which allow such a key activity, we will put that under threat.

Not every sports field will disappear overnight but some will—they will be moved and they will not be replaced. My amendment suggests that, if we go ahead with this, something must be put in its place. That is not too much to ask. I would like to vote on the amendment, unless the Government provide some great revelation, in which case I shall say, “Hallelujah!” and sit down.

In this country, these community activities are largely conducted without much government intervention. Private groups get involved and bring their own time and often money, but they need to be supported to allow these activities to take place. I suggest that my amendment—or at least something like it—would not be too much to ensure that something as important as community, grass-roots sports have their pitches defended, to give them a chance to continue to function as they currently do.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

107: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Preservation of playing fields and pitches(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development, or(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing field” and “playing pitch” have the same definitions as in Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/2184).”

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I discussed this at the beginning of the day and ruminated long on what the Minister said. I am afraid it does not meet my objections. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is a Bill where there is no real argument against what it is doing. The fact you are attempting to get into a ground should be an offence; I believe that was raised in another place. Do we want it? Yes, because the attempt is where the disorder occurs. It is where other offences start and are liable to happen. So, yes, it should be there, and a banning order is probably an appropriate response along with a fine.

However, even those with greater expertise than me in this field have said that it is all about the enforcement. It may not be that this Bill is designed to cover that; it is understandable that it is not. To get it on the statute book is probably the first step. As has been mentioned, if you get your intelligence wrong or do not have the will to back it up, no piece of legislation means anything; there are lots of pieces of defunct legislation hanging around. You must follow it up. Indeed, the genesis of the disorder at the 2021 European finals was—I raised this in the House—a breakdown of intelligence and people not putting sufficient resources in to deal with the problem. Social media was mentioned; it became known that we were still spacing and there must be extra capacity in the stadium, so people went. We have to look at this in the round and make sure we back it up.

I do not think this Bill is somewhere we can correct everything. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we can start to discuss details. Hopefully, the Minister, when we come to the details, will give us a better idea of the Government’s understanding and what we are going to do to go forward. That would be an appropriate use of Committee on this Bill. I am not sure whether amending it would help or hinder. I suspect that there is only so much time, even in a Session which seems to be as elastic as this one, to get something through. I would look forward to at least discussing that.

Once again, what this Bill says is good. The enforcement capacity—the gathering of intelligence and the will to act—is the elephant in the room. It is the elephant which has now been discussed, talked about and put a howdah on in this debate. We have to make sure we do that. We have to use everything that goes with it because, if you do not do that, it will become meaningless. There are also issues of facial recognition and subsequently identifying people who have broken the law. All of this stuff is probably there, but I do not know if it comes into the Bill or could be in it.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, when he replies, can let us know what the timeframe is, as indeed can the Minister. We will see what we can do then. I think this is good, but it is certainly not the whole story. There are certainly things the Government can do to make sure that this is more effective and that the policing of football is done more effectively. I wish this measure well.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I have added my name. I support Amendment 82 as well.

First, I briefly pay tribute to those who have argued for the agent of change principle for much longer than I have, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Spellar, among others—some of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out in Committee, are sadly no longer with us. I am not going to repeat the arguments for the agent of change principle that I made then. Suffice it to say, as I have been making clear, it has been widely supported on a cross-party basis across the whole of Parliament. It has the backing of the music industry, in particular many household names including Paul McCartney. I thank UK Music and the Music Venue Trust among others for their briefings.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said in Committee, the committee led by the noble Baroness looking at the 2003 licensing legislation was delighted—that was the word it used—that the then Government agreed with it. However, experience has since then proved—and it is now widely understood—that the guidance that has been in place is simply not enough. It is not working.

My main point is to take issue with the Minister’s statement in Committee that embedding these principles in law

“risks increasing the number of legal challenges to developments”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 1031.]

In disagreeing with this conclusion, it is worth quoting fully what the Music Venue Trust says in response to that statement by the Minister. It states:

“In terms of legal challenges, we believe the opposite. The Music Venue Trust mostly makes planning objections because developers do not have to abide by agent of change, and therefore do not. If they had to abide from the off, we think this would greatly reduce the number of objections we would put in … in cases where objections did have to be placed, they would be resolved much more quickly because the objector would have legislation to point to, which would empower the local authority to respond emphatically”.


The Music Venue Trust points in particular to the significant distinction between Scotland, where the agent of change is statutory, and England, where it is not. In comparative terms, the process in Scotland is straightforward and open; in England, it is characterised by avoidance and prevarication.

I want to make just a couple of other points. First, the Government’s consultation that is currently out on pubs, many of which are also live music venues, makes it even more imperative that the agent of change is legislated for to create the certainty which is now required. Secondly, we are awaiting the imminent publication of the London Nightlife Taskforce report, which my noble friend Lord Freyberg referenced earlier today and which will certainly address planning regulations in relation to the current concerns and live music venues. Whatever happens to this amendment, I hope the Minister will look carefully at the recommendations contained within that report, which will have relevance also to the country as a whole.

Finally, this is an important amendment. If the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wished to take it to a vote, I would certainly support her.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, live music events and things like that improve people’s lives and the quality of life. You are going down there. You may annoy one or two people, but most people will benefit from them. They are an important part of community involvement, and making sure that they remain is something that this House should be taking seriously.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others who have expressed their support for this amendment as well as to colleagues in another place who raised similar arguments when the Bill was considered there, not least Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in another place.

As noble Lords have said, these venues are vital parts of our cultural infrastructure. They are the reason that we can look forward with excitement to the musicians, artists and talented cultural figures of the future. They are also vital components in building not just houses and housing estates but communities where people want to live with things to do, things that bring joy to their lives. If the Government want the communities that are being built, with the commendable focus on new building that they have, to be vital living and attractive places, it is important that we encourage space for those who are going to brighten our lives with cultural output. We have also seen in the regeneration of coastal communities and many other places how important it is to have those important bits of cultural infrastructure to help revitalise local areas.

Like others, I commend the work of the Music Venue Trust in this regard. It has campaigned long and hard about the plight of live music venues at grass-roots level. My noble friend mentioned Ed Sheeran and Oasis, whose careers were built on these grass-roots venues. I would like to mention Sam Fender, who, like me, hails from North Shields and last week won the Mercury Music Prize and was spotted in the Low Lights Tavern in North Shields. So many of the artists that we like and enjoy today would not be here were it not for those grass-roots venues.

The Music Venue Trust has pointed out how many venues we are losing through all the many challenges. Some 43% of live music grass-roots venues did not make a profit last year. They operate on very tiny margins. There are obviously contending with the rise in national insurance contributions that the Government have set, and last year’s Budget cut rate relief from 75% to 40%, adding a £7 million tax burden on them. Anything we can do to make it easier for the number of grass-roots music venues and bits of cultural infrastructure to grow rather than diminish is worth supporting, and I add my voice in support of those who have spoken up for this amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Addington]

165: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Preservation of playing fields and pitches(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to— (a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development, or(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing fields” and “playing pitches” have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to one of those wonderful issues where we have something in place that works, which this Bill will remove, and that is the protection provided by Sport England for playing fields and recreational facilities. I am in danger of making a very short speech or a very long one and am trying to draw a line down the middle.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The former, please.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Clearly, my noble friend has heard me often enough.

The best playing fields are in nice, urban environments where people can get to them. Effectively, you have a greenfield site, often owned by a cash-strapped local authority or an independent school that has been increasingly under pressure to improve exam results rather than develop the whole picture. The playing field owners say, “Wouldn’t it be better if we had a slightly better new gym court and got rid of the field?” or “Nobody else is playing on the playing field because we haven’t maintained it”; they sell it off and get rid of it. Who cares? The people who play the sport do and the people you want to play the sport should.

What is sport? It is the ultimate community activity with health benefits, and public playing fields are essential for those in grass-roots sport to be able to address this. Go to any successful sports club, especially for sports such as football, rugby, and cricket, and it will have started on a public playing field. That is where you start. Even with these property-owning sports—rugby and cricket are the classic examples—where you are encouraged to take over, manage and own your own ground, you start somewhere else and develop on from it. You can expand your playing numbers by taking on smaller pitches for your junior teams by using them. It is an integrated part of it. If you do not have that capacity, the nature of the club will be threatened. So we have something which adds to it, but it is potentially a cash cow for some other groups and is sitting there in the right place, very tempting for any housing plan.

The body that has been protecting such places, Sport England, is no longer a consultee. That is what it is thinking and feeling. If we are wrong about that, I would be very grateful to hear it when whichever Minister replies, and your Lordships will not be hearing from me again. If that is not the case, there is something to be answered here.

My amendment would put in another duty; of course, it is Committee and this is just the first go, but I hope that the Government will tell me here if there is another solution to this—if they cannot tell me exactly at this stage, I will make myself available for any meetings to make sure that I know and can tell the rest of the House. If something positive is going to happen there, I will be more than grateful to go away and spread the word. If the Government are not going to do something like this and will just leave it to a general duty, they are basically guaranteeing losses, and possibly catastrophic losses. Unless you understand this and your current drive is for something else, you will ignore it, because we all do. What is your primary objective? We go there. I hope that the Government will tell me something positive and supportive with regard to this group.

We should also remember that you are supporting voluntary groups which do this at very little cost to the state at the moment. That culture of gathering together, paying for the use of the pitch and running up has to have a little space to grow. If we remove that, we will stifle the whole thing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has another amendment down here; I think we all know enough not to say exactly what her amendments mean, but the idea of play also comes in and tags on there. Such play is not as formalised or structured, but it is also important.

I hope that whichever Minister replies will be able to tell us that something solid will address this, not a general air or duty of “Oh yes, of course they will deal with it”, because we all know that things like that get ignored. We need something solid that will make sure there is a protection at least compatible with what is going on now. If we do not, we will have to go back to this, at least once, and possibly it will have to be decided by a decision of the whole House. I hope we do not need to do that, but I am quite prepared to do it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Just to reassure him, I did not dream up Amendment 179; it was originally presented in the other place, and I am taking it forward with the support of Play England. I hope that what it means will be very clear.

I was happy to attach my name to Amendment 165, which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, just presented. In a sense, the first amendment we have had here is a subset of the broader amendment. Amendment 165 is about formal play, if you like, such as organised games and structured activities; my amendment covers those but also looks more broadly at unstructured play and interaction where young people in particular have the chance to mix.

The proposed new clause introduces a play-sufficiency duty to ensure that every local planning authority

“must, so far as reasonably practicable, assess, secure, enhance, and protect”—

“protect” is particularly important—

“sufficient opportunities for children’s play when exercising any of its planning functions”.

Far too often, play is seen as something frivolous and childish, to be fitted around the edges of cramming for exams; rigid, structured arrangements. Yet we know that play is essential for physical and mental health. It is vital for the development of minds and bodies. It offers a space for the flowering of social skills and the development, crucially, of independence: the ability to assess risks, to take risks and to deal with the consequences, particularly in an unstructured environment. Yet this is being squeezed out of children’s lives in urban and other environments. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about playing fields being sold off. We have also seen a huge number of closures of swimming pools, which has real public safety implications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The Government have committed to consult on the impact of removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. We will do that shortly and see what the result is, and I suggest that the noble Lord takes part in that consultation as well.

As I have set out, we have robust processes in place to support and protect spaces for play and recreation, and we will consider this issue further as we update our planning policies. These matters are best addressed through our policy and funding. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press these amendments.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it is the answer that I expected: “There’s a process in place that’s going to take care of this and look at it, because we’re basically nice people, we’re going to do the right thing”. The problem with that is that you may be basically nice people trying to do the right thing, but you have a thousand different pressures pulling at you.

Preserving these spaces is going to annoy planners and people doing other things, so it is a trade-off. At the moment, there is public consultation and public pressure to make sure they are kept going. If the Minister could expand on his answer and tell us whether this will be made public so we knew what is going on, I would have a bit more faith. How do the general public or the national governing bodies know what is going through? How can they put pressure on from the outside? You would have a little bit more faith then.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord mentions this or that consultation. We have put in £1.5 billion of funding for neighbourhoods, part of which can be used for enabling the provision of public areas for play. The noble Lord cannot say that it is just about consultation and warm words; it is real money put to real effect.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, real money has been put to real effect in planning disasters throughout my adult life. It is a case of making sure that you get someone who understands what this means and is publicly able to answer. Would the Minister be able to facilitate me being able to see what this means? That is something I would like to see, and I am sure there are a couple of people here with experience in this area who might want to come in on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I am sure we can sort something out.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that undertaking; I will take him up on it. I have to say I also support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We have to get this right because the potential for cock-up is massive. It is damaging to the communities around them. There is no point in having a lovely home in a dreadful environment. I thank the Minister, and I am quite happy to withdraw this amendment. What I do with it in future will depend on the outcomes of those meetings. Under those circumstances, I withdraw my amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to design. The decent homes standard currently refers only to housing hazards in socially rented homes once they are in use. It does not address the planning, design, construction or quality of new homes, nor where they are located, nor does it address measures that more positively promote good health. Neither the NPPF nor the decent homes standard nor this Bill contain any requirement for new development to promote health creation. Part 2 of the Bill states that development policies and sustainable development strategies should “have regard” to health inequalities—it does not require any action. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, simply raises the stakes, and that is why I support it.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to give a few words of support to my noble friend in sport Lord Moynihan—that is his expression, but I will use it today. Sporting activity is an incredibly important part of building most communities in our country. It brings them together and contributes to health. We have heard a lot about the Department of Health; it may not be represented here, but I am sure the Ministers are quite capable of carrying the message to it that if you do not have good sporting facilities and activity, you cannot utilise this. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond she will tell us how they are going to work this—or some duty that looks at all the benefits—into the new structure. We have a great deal here about driving something forward; as other noble Lords have said, if we drive forward something that does not deliver a decent environment—the opening comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, got to the heart of it—you will ultimately create unpleasant environments. We have done so in the past. We have already heard Billy Connolly’s description of being moved out of the Gorbals, because it was a slum, to somewhere which rapidly became a slum except with new buildings, because it had no facilities. Can the Minister give us a description of how they are going to work in access to green spaces, active travel infrastructure, sport and physical activity? If these are excluded from planning up front, those making the decisions will not follow up on them—if you do not have to do it, you will not, because you are busy and you have a prime objective. I hope that the Minister will tell us how they are going to deal with this, because if they do not do so, I am afraid we are going to have to put it into the Bill, one way or another.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 123 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Design is so important. Buildings can be beautiful, or ugly. They can enhance communities, or they can destroy them. We need quality homes that are sustainable and that in 200 or 300 years, people still think are beautiful. It was Winston Churchill who once remarked:

“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]


Thus, upholding architectural standards and considering aesthetic standards is essential. Our environment has a dramatic impact upon our lives, affecting our outlook, our well-being and most importantly, our mental and general health.

We already have many beautiful buildings in the UK, big and small, but it would seem that this aspect is all too often forgotten in new construction. Houses need to include local area designs, and, where possible, use local, natural materials. We should not forget that concrete and steel contribute significantly to carbon dioxide emissions, exacerbating climate change.

I understand that this was discussed in detail in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, commonly known as LURB. I ask the Minister, when are the provisions in LURB going to be implemented, and can she guarantee that they will be? Is the office of the place up and running in this regard, and will this have an effect on what is going to be built?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Addington Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thought I would be the only person to mention recreation and sport in this Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has stepped timidly on to the territory with footpaths.

The removal of consultees is something I have found rather worrying, and Sport England disappearing as a consultee is something I find very worrying. We are going to do away with the system and remove the roadblock by making sure that we do not have a body that defends playing fields. Now, I would say this, wouldn’t I? I cover sport; I play sport. If I have to declare an interest about my career as a rugby union player, it is a financially very strongly negative one. It is positive for physiotherapists and manufacturers of rugby boots, but the rest of it is distinctly negative.

Playing fields allow that sport to happen. The little club I started with is now known as Lakenham Union but was originally Lakenham Hewett. For the first 10 to 15 years of its career, it played its home games totally on school playing fields. It has gone on to be something bigger and has developed. But we do not have that statutory defence any more. The Bill before me says that the ultimate plan is—I give up; dyslexia comes into it, and I probably should have declared that in Questions earlier—to look at this. However, the Bill is removing the people who look at playing fields; you do not have that defence in place any more.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, spoke about government being a little bit cleverer. Did we not hear yesterday the Minister determinedly saying, “Yes, we need more sport; we need a better choice for school education; we need people to get out there to try the whole thing”? You cannot do that if you do not have playing fields. You just cannot. It is a benefit for health, communities and everything else. I hope that at the end of this process—how much I bother the Committee and Report stage depends on how soon I get the answer; you can save some parliamentary time by giving me a nice answer —we get some consideration and something solid to defend community assets.

One of the briefings I had referred to things being superfluous and no longer needed. But if you have a bit of green open space to play sport on, how can that possibly not be needed? It is ultimately reusable many times over. The way you do that is by making sure you do not have any changing rooms, but it takes a bit of investment. There is enough local government experience in this room to know that I am telling the truth. If we are not going to look after these things to make sure that the communities we are building around have some assets to make them communities, we are ultimately going to fail.

A reference was made to Billy Connolly’s description of being moved out of Glasgow. I have heard it; it is very funny, and it makes a political point. You move somebody out of somewhere and say, “You’re out of a slum now—but you’re living in a desert”. School playing fields, parks and so on are key components that allow these things to happen. I say to the Government: please make sure they are protected, and protected properly, and if you are going to get rid of them, make sure you put something much better in their place. It is these little details that turn successes into failures, and I hope the Government are listening.

International Women’s Day

Lord Addington Excerpts

Friday 10th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, in this rather unexpected role of summing up in this debate, it may be a real case of a fool rushing in where an angel would have turned tail and got out of there right quick.

The tone that I take from this debate is primarily that we are pointing out the lack of resource, or rather the resource that we are turning down, for the betterment of society. If we do not allow 51% of our population to play their full part—I speak for the 49%—we are making our lives rather more difficult than they should be. We are not allowing ourselves that luxury of the support that is out there. There is enough status to go around, to be perfectly honest. If we settle for just half—after all, it is slightly more than we are entitled to—we will not be doing too badly.

The specific points that I was going to raise were to do with women in education. This was inspired by my long-standing interest, of which I remind the House, in special educational needs, particularly in the neurodiverse sector. Something that we have discovered during the past couple of decades is that a problem that we thought was almost exclusively male is rather better shared out between the sexes.

We think that the number of dyslexic, dyspraxic and autistic females, and those with ADHD, were not spotted because of something that works in favour of women—they handle the classroom better than their peers. They soldier on, just about get through and keep their heads down. They try to get on. They put that bit of extra work in, as opposed to taking the traditional male route—this a stereotype; there are obvious exceptions, but it seems to be the rule—and thus they do not get noticed. The boy at the back with ADHD who kicks off, has a meltdown, runs around and gets himself thrown out of the class is noticed, while the girl with ADHD is sitting there playing with her hair obsessively, rearranging her pencils or fidgeting. Those coping strategies are for the same condition, but one is just about acceptable in the classroom and the other is not.

There are costs beyond education departments. A girl with high-functioning autism who is not spotted or paid much attention to in the classroom has the enormous stress of trying to handle that unfriendly environment and adhere to the norms of not only the classroom but her classmates and the break period. I was told of one case, “Yes, she got through the classroom; the meltdowns come when she gets home.” They can totally withdraw from the rest of the family when they get home, because the stress involved is far too high to remain bottled up for ever.

The same is true of dyslexia, particularly for the person who is not dramatically badly affected but who is just about getting on with it, or not failing dramatically enough to be noticed. That person in the middle, who puts their head down and is okay, will carry on, while the one who kicks off or complains loudly will be spotted. Dyslexia, which is the world I know best—I am dyslexic, and took the female approach for most of my career—was said to be four times as common in males as in females. Every time someone has looked at it, that figure has come down a little more. Anecdotally, I suspected that it could not be true—although I probably repeated it in this Chamber—and that we were not spotting what was going on.

The real reason I raise this today is that yesterday we had that wonderful, much-delayed Statement on special educational needs. I am afraid that the same Minister is about to speak. When she sums up, could she give us some idea of the amount of training being delivered to spot the quiet person who is struggling on? That is so important, as is getting in there early. I spoke about the waste of potential; we are wasting potential and making that person’s life more unpleasant. We are not getting them the help and structure that they need.

It is very odd that there seems to be some stigma when this is spotted in the classroom. At universities, there is not; if you have struggled through to them, they are quite good at helping you get support, help and the assessment that goes with the disabled students’ allowance. It is quite common to find someone who has been assessed there later on, but not at school. What is the education sector doing to make sure that it spots everyone, not just the noisy ones? This is an extension of the fact that the whole sector is dependent on the tiger parent.

Unless we get schools and the education structure to do more of the spotting of what is going on, we will always underestimate these groups, particularly among those who do not come from what we will call the exam-passing classes. A person in such a group might be the first to get a qualification. I hope that the Minister will have a few words to say about this when she winds up, because underestimating this group is probably the best bit of unconscious prejudice I have found in a while.

What is the Minister doing to encourage girls to take up sports that give them status? They are generally male sports, of course; the prejudice is historical. I hope the Minister will encourage girls to play the mainstream popular sports. Football is the first and rugby is not doing too badly. The fact that women now have their own Six Nations competition, not tucked in behind the men on a Saturday evening, is a step forward, as is England Women doing so well in the World Cup—and I am somebody who cheers for Scotland. I hope the Minister will give us a hint about what the Government are doing to make sure that these big team games that get attention are being made as accessible as those played by men—or, if they are not doing that, that they are encouraging blokes to play netball.

I hope that the Minister in her reply to my one or two points—and the many other, probably more expected, points—will be able to give us an idea of how the Government will look at and identify women in society who have slightly more hidden problems. If you get them wrong in the education sector, you are always running with a sack on your shoulders.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses and noble Lords who have spoken today. In particular, I welcome my noble friend Lady Lampard; like hers, my mother was both a refugee and an indomitable woman, so I can identify with some of what she said. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned the warm welcome she got when she arrived in this House from the noble Baroness, Lady Gale; the noble Baroness gave me an incredibly warm welcome and I know that my noble friend will receive an equally warm welcome from all sides of your Lordships’ House.

Our debate today has provided a space in which to reflect on the many challenges that disproportionately affect women and girls. However, it has also shone a light on the progress we have made in overcoming some of the barriers that prevent women and girls fulfilling their true potential.

Of course, as your Lordships have noted, it is critical in achieving this both at home and abroad that girls and young women get a proper, broad education. It is only fitting, therefore, that I remind the House that the UK is a world leader in championing girls’ education. We used our presidency of the G7 in 2021 to agree two ambitious global targets: getting 40 million more girls in education and 20 million more girls reading by the age of 10 by 2026. Educating girls helps to prevent child marriage and early pregnancy; it helps women into the workforce; and it boosts household incomes and economic growth.

There is a huge global education crisis, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, with 244 million children out of school globally. More than half those children are girls. Through the girls’ education action plan, which we published in 2021, the UK supports education systems in developing countries to deliver quality education for all children in a way that is safe, inclusive and sustainable. That is so important to overcome some of the stereotypes that a number of your Lordships referred to, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Ludford, my noble friend Lady Jenkin and the noble Lord, Lord Sahota. Indeed, I got a text message from my daughter this morning because apparently the Financial Times is running an article titled “Style Your Life FT Pink”. She reminded me that, when she was a child, she thought her father got a grey paper and her mother got a pink paper because her mother was a woman. Someone had better break it to the editor of the FT.

At home, the Government recognise the huge contribution of the early years workforce to making sure that every child has the best start in life. The noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins, Lady Twycross and Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Monks, all stressed the importance of accessible and affordable childcare. I was concerned about the case the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, raised of a woman who found it too complex to navigate. Supporting the childcare and early years workforce continues to be a priority for the department. That is why we are supporting the sector in early years to recruit and retain more staff, for example by providing additional funding for graduate-level specialist training leading to early years teacher status. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, knows, we are also funding an accredited level 3 early years SENCO qualification so that all children with special educational needs and disabilities, in particular the young girls to which the noble Lord referred, are identified at the earliest possible point.

In relation to childcare, we know that the sector is facing economic challenges similar to the challenges faced across the economy. We have already announced additional funding of £160 million in 2022-23, £180 million in 2023-24 and £170 million in 2024-25, compared with the 2021-22 financial year, for local authorities to increase the hourly rates paid to childcare providers. This is crucial for improving the cost, choice and availability of childcare for working parents.

More broadly, in relation to flexible working, which the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to, on 5 December 2022 the Government published the response to their consultation on flexible working, which committed to give all employees the right to request flexible working from their first day of employment. This will ensure that an additional estimated 2.2 million people will be able to request changes to their hours, times or place of work. The Government have also committed to further legislative changes that will support more open and constructive engagement between employers and employees to find acceptable flexible working arrangements.

My noble friends Lady Seccombe, Lady Meyer and Lord Shinkwin all expressed their concerns about the relationships and sex education curriculum in schools. Just to clarify for the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the Government are clear that biological sex is a fact. It exists and it clearly matters.

There is a very sensitive and precious relationship between schools and parents, and keeping that confidence and level of trust between schools and parents, particularly in these very sensitive areas of the curriculum, is critical. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was absolutely clear earlier this week when he said that schools should not be teaching inappropriate or contested content in this area. Our priority should always be the safety and well-being of children, and schools should make the curriculum content and materials available to parents. We will be bringing forward a review of the statutory guidance on the relationship, sex and health education curriculum and starting a consultation on that as soon as possible.

My noble friend Lady Sater and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the importance of school sport. I feel I need to readjust the noble Lord’s perception of status: I think, given the performance of the Lionesses, that perhaps status has tipped a little in favour of the women—but I will leave him to consider that point.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

The point I was making was that football is traditionally seen as a male sport—that is the status they have gained—not the fact that women’s sport itself has changed.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

It was a joke, mate.

Social Mobility Commission

Lord Addington Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have no plans to do that. Katharine made very clear why she left in her article in Schools Week. The Minister for Women and Equalities has been very clear about how grateful she is to Katharine for her time as chair and also to Alun Francis, her deputy, who has now taken over as interim chairman. The commission has done excellent work under Katharine’s chairmanship and Alun’s deputy chairmanship, and that work will go on, so we have no plans to change anything at the moment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as I have read it, the person who has resigned felt that they were doing more harm than good in the end. Can the Government make sure that they define exactly what they are supposed to do, and that the public know what that is, so that when the next person takes up this role on a permanent basis, we can all know what to expect and they can know what to deliver?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is very clear what the SMC should be doing. It is written down in its agreement with the Government. It has been delivering that, and it will continue to deliver that. I know that the commission met on 9 January under the deputy chairman, Alun Francis, and it is continuing to work and continuing with the priorities set previously by Katharine, Alun and the commission.

Building Safety Defects

Lord Addington Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Sorry; that is north London. Someone who has served in local government will have experience, obviously, of public housing. I was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham for six years and a councillor there for 16 years. Of course, when it comes to public housing or social housing, there are things that you can do, but this is something that goes right across the built environment—both private housing and public housing. We will look at measures, obviously driven through local government, but that will not solve this crisis in the round. Noble Lords have to await the announcement from my right honourable friend in the other place.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government not agree that the arbitrary line of 18 metres has led to much of this confusion and the fact that people feel they have been trapped? Can the Government please give us an assurance that they will not make that sort of arbitrary line in future?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

It is not arbitrary; it is well established that 18 metres is the cut-off point for a high-rise building. It helps us to categorise buildings. We do it in storeys as well. We have had The Cube, which I think was 17.5 metres in height rather than 18 metres, so it is anything above six storeys. But it helps us to understand the scale of the problem. The reality is that the scale of the problem is far greater in high-rise buildings; you cannot get ladders up tall buildings. As many will know, when it comes to firefighting— I happen to be the Fire Minister as well—it is much harder to help evacuate high-rise buildings than medium or low-rise ones. Therefore, I think it is right to have this line. But we will have something called a PAS 9980 that will help to risk assess the problem, irrespective of height, and that will be introduced shortly.