Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I give the Green group’s strongest possible support for all the amendments in this group. I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb is recovering well from her operation last week.

If there is one amendment that my noble friend will regret not being here for, it is Amendment 212 on swift bricks. She is very passionate about swifts, and is it any wonder? These amazing creatures, with their top speed of 110 kilometres per hour, travelling 5,500 kilometres each way for their migrations, are long-distance athletes. They are making that journey, and then finding nowhere to raise their young. That is the reality of what we, by our actions, have created. Of course, they are now red-listed.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has already set this out very clearly and carefully, and the other noble Baronesses have already said a lot. I just note that, when we debated a very similar amendment to what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, then on the Opposition Benches, said that she was “delighted” to see the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that it was

“justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habits ”.—[Official Report, 6/9/23; col. 541.]

and that it had the Labour Party’s full support. Can we get to there, please? This is such a small measure. Why not? It is such a tiny action and a small cost. Yet, if you are a swift, this is not a small thing. This is a matter of life or extinction.

The other amendments are on other things we need to do, but there is a lot of discussion that the situation of swifts is unique. I fully back the hedgehog highways, the gaps in fences and other simple things, but swift bricks are just so simple.

Amendment 225, which was clearly introduced by the noble Baroness, is on bird-safe buildings. The British Trust for Ornithology has done a great deal of work on this, estimating that 100 million birds crash into the windows of buildings in the UK each year. One-third die as a result. That is a huge toll that is almost invisible. Back in 2022, the BTO did some research looking at local planning rules and essentially, there is no protection in any of our major cities and communities.

I will take noble Lords back to a case study that illustrates what happens on a day-to-day basis. It happened in a single day, so it really made an impact. Back in 2023 in Chicago, as a result of citizen science efforts, all the sad carcasses of more than 1,000 birds that had flown into one building in the US were collected. You may recall the pictures; a huge array of bird bodies was laid out. As was set out then, some very simple measures would have stopped that happening—the measures this amendment calls for.

Amendment 227GA is in my name and has considerable similarities to the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, but perhaps goes a little further. It says that, within 18 months of this Act coming into force—I am allowing more time because this is much broader than what we need for swifts—regulations under the Building Act should be brought in to protect, and to ensure

“opportunities for living and feeding space for nature, mammals, birds, reptiles and insects”.

I also talk about the need for resources for plants.

The inspiration for this is probably not unique, but fairly unusual. It comes from an exhibition now on—I urge noble Lords to go and see it—at the Design Museum. It is called “More than Human” and is the first major exhibition of a growing movement of more than human design: a new generation of designers who understand that humans can flourish only alongside other activities and systems. It is part of the future observatory, the Design Museum’s national research programme for the green transition.

Let me give one example. There is a piece of artwork by Andres Jaque, “Transspecies Rosette”. It is a piece of a façade of a building made of cork, which is ideal for mosses, grasses, bacteria and mould. Normally, the façade of a building is designed to be impermeable—to stop anything growing and to keep everything out. What if we turned that around, and started to think about what a different kind of society would look like? I will very briefly mention “Sculpture for Octopuses” by Shimabuku, who experimented to see what colours octopuses liked and made artwork as a result.

I will conclude with a recollection from my youth. In 1988 I was a young journalist, and some Australians were marking the bicentenary of the start of the genocide of the Aboriginal people and the massive destruction of the environment of Australia that followed. The Australian parliament building was opened, but it was bogong moth migration season, and almost immediately the building filled up with bogong moths. No one had thought about this. They had brought in British western design traditions, plonked them down in Australia, and that was the result. So many decades later, the bogong moth, which the Aboriginal communities had feasted on over centuries—they had eaten them but also protected them—is now on the IUCN red list. It is gravely endangered. Something that, only decades ago, existed in great numbers is now threatened with extinction. We have to stop making buildings that have that kind of impact.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I will be even swifter than the noble Lord, Lord Randall. There are some good ideas in these amendments. If we can protect bats in the belfry and great crested newts in the pond, why can we not do the same for swifts? They are such wonderful birds.

I am also interested in Amendment 225, because I have witnessed, very distressingly, quite a few birds smashing into windows and glass on my small farm in mid-Wales. To see these beautiful creatures lying on the ground, either stunned or dead, is very upsetting. Any efforts we could make to protect our dwindling bird population from crashing into buildings is to be supported.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I speak from a building that is full of moths—but I have never tried eating them.

I approve of Amendment 227GA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle; it goes to the root of the fact that we must find ways of living with and closer to nature. It ought to be slightly more detailed, so that I am allowed to exclude mice, but the overall principle—that we provide for wildlife living alongside us—is right.

Although I have had provision for swifts for the past 15 years, it has never had a swift in it—principally, I think, because there are probably not enough insects for the swifts to live on. We therefore need to provide a full habitat and not just a nesting place. Swift bricks sound far too much like an easy exit for the Government that will allow them to say, “Tick. Don’t need to do anything more”. I very much hope they can be tempted in the direction that the noble Baroness has outlined for them.

I also hope that they will do something about birds crashing into glass. It is simple: there are technical solutions, and we can live with them. We ought not to do this to birds. Just change the rules and, over time, we will do much less damage.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for raising a critical issue that is at crisis point: namely, housing in rural communities. We on these Benches understand the need to support those in the agricultural community, who are on unique tenancy arrangements for a variety of historical reasons. These tenancies often involve longer durations, inter- generational involvement and a closer relationship between the land and the livelihood than is typical elsewhere in the rental sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, described. As such, it is vital that any legislative change reflects the particular realities of agricultural life and does not introduce any unintended uncertainty or disruption.

Crucially, it is important to ensure that there is greater clarity for both landlords and tenants operating under agricultural tenancies. In a sector where long-term planning and security of tenure are essential, both parties require clear and consistent rules to navigate their rights and responsibilities with confidence. That said, we on these Benches are somewhat hesitant about the proposed amendments in this group to introduce a new repossession ground for these tenancies. We believe it is possible that there may be more effective ways to provide reassurance to those living under such arrangements. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who farms, albeit not on the same scale as the noble Lords who have spoken thus far, or indeed anywhere near it, I am very sensitive to the requirement for security of tenants. On the other hand, I know that—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

Excuse me, can the noble Lord confirm that he was here at the start of the debate?

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

I was here earlier.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

But, as the noble Lord was not here from the start of the debate, I am afraid he cannot speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on Amendment 65. I take this opportunity to apologise that, sadly, I was not able to attend the first day of Committee on Tuesday, when, had I been able to, I would have supported the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in his Amendment 62, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, noted, is reasonably similar to this.

I shall embellish what the noble Lord has said clearly with two examples. One example is a house that has been lived in by a protected tenant family but, 30 or 40 years on—that is the reality of protected tenancies—the house might need serious refurbishment, which after 35 years may cost north of £100,000 to comply with EPC or MEES, and will take nine or more months to complete; and the need to find a house to put said old and retired couple in more suitable accommodation while retaining their protected tenancy status. That accommodation might be an almshouse or a bungalow.

The second example is a protected tenant family that may have been a large family, with three or four children back in the day, occupying a four-bedroom house. The children have married or moved away. The father is deceased and the widow is knocking around in a large four-bedroom house that is expensive to heat and manage; perhaps it has a dangerous old staircase, with a bathroom downstairs and the bedrooms upstairs. One has to think about this, because that is denying a large house to a young, growing family who may themselves be in a two-bedroom flat or house. A simple solution—which, again, would come through negotiation, but I am sure would be welcomed by a widow—would be a house swap, with the widow retaining her protected tenancy. That would mean evicting the small, growing family, but offering them the opportunity to move into a larger house.

There are quite a few examples in the rural tenanted sector—and, I suspect, in the urban sector—where families have stayed in houses for many years, but then the family, having grown for 20-odd years, starts reducing in size but they remain in a big house. So it is important that protected tenants can be housed in smaller houses and that the tenants of those smaller houses are moved out, to allow the churn of housing as families grow and then reduce in size.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for speaking prematurely. I speak as someone—I should declare this interest—who has a small farm, as I said earlier, which is very small in comparison with those of some of the noble Lords who have spoken. However, I have seen at first hand some of the problems that have been described. In particular, I remember one old lady who carried on in a house where she simply was not able to manage the property and its upkeep. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord opposite are suggesting would help to avoid very painful, costly legal cases where people have to try and get somebody out, which causes enormous bad feeling and cost.

I am in favour of this amendment and would have been in favour of previous ones because I think in farming at the moment the difficulties that landlords face are so immense—I will not go through them all now—that the ability to keep a farm going, which is the interests of tenants and future tenants, is prejudiced if they cannot get back suitable accommodation. I completely understand the desire, which I am sure the Government have, to offer security to tenants. In fact, that is an extremely important part of the fabric of our society, but we have moved on in some ways and what has happened in farming and what I have observed around me in mid-Wales is that there is a need to be able to get back certain properties to bring in younger people to farm.

I broadly support these amendments and suggest to the Government, with great respect, that if there is any way that they can move to accommodate them, I would very much support them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for moving this amendment and again he has given an excellent technical explanation of the need for it. I shall not try and repeat it, in the certain knowledge that I would not give as good an explanation. It recognises the enduring statutory duties placed on certain landlords to house former employees. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, who have further explained and emphasised the issues and why this amendment is necessary.

Many of these tenants are retired agricultural workers who have given years, sometimes decades, of service and who now occupy homes with lifetime security of tenure. As such, landlords—often small family-run farming businesses—continue to shoulder a statutory duty to provide housing, even after the employment relationship has finished. This is not merely a moral obligation; it is a legal one that increasingly runs into practical difficulty.

The housing needs of retired employees can evolve over time. A once necessary dwelling may no longer be suitable, as has been mentioned, due to age, health, or changes in family circumstances and numbers. At the same time, that same property may now be needed to house a current employee whose work is essential to the functioning of the farm. Yet under the current drafting of the renters reform Bill, landlords cannot regain possession of that alternative accommodation in order to fulfil their continuing statutory duty. Amendment 65 corrects that oversight. It provides for a narrow, targeted new ground for possession applicable only when the landlord is required to rehouse a protected tenant or their successor, and only when suitable alternative accommodation is required for that purpose.

This is not about weakening tenant protections or finding a loophole—far from it. This is about balance, ensuring that landlords who remain bound by statutory obligations are able to meet them in practice. Without this amendment we risk trapping landlords in a legal Catch-22, where they are legally required to provide suitable housing but legally prevented from doing so. Importantly, they will be able to provide accommodation to retired employees who may have given many years of service and who deserve secure accommodation in their retirement, without the risk of breaking the law or leaving accommodation empty in expectation of its use later.

This amendment does not open a back door to wider evictions; it simply ensures the fair and functional operation of existing, long-established housing duties. It is balanced, proportionate and essential to upholding the very laws that protect these tenants.

Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (England) Order 2024

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my interests as detailed in the register, including being a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which has its own housing HRA. I very much support my noble friends’ comments regarding the opportunities that right to buy has given to so many people, but I will highlight the fact that this is an issue not of the sale of council homes but of a complete failure to build.

There are 4.25 million affordable homes—an increase of some 35,000 over the last two years, even with the sale of around 30,000 affordable homes in that period. I am pleased that the last Government had the 100% retention of right-to-buy receipts, which facilitated councils building homes. If we are to build the homes that we need, it is essential to maximise all avenues to building more homes. Allowing tenants to buy their own homes with a reasonable incentive and reinvesting the proceeds in new homes is an opportunity for more, not fewer, homes.

I will give the example of my own council, and I will trump my noble friend Lord Fuller because Central Bedfordshire was at 1.5%, not 1%. I am proud that, as leader of Central Beds, we had a proactive council house building programme. For example, in the period 2021-23 we built 259 homes and acquired a further 76, and we sold 82 under the right-to-buy rules —a net increase of 253. Without the proceeds from right to buy we would have ended up building substantially fewer homes. That would have meant tens of families—possibly even 100—not having a home because we would not have had the right-to-buy proceeds. That is important, because it gives more people the opportunity for an affordable rented home.

I reiterate: the ability to reinvest proceeds from right to buy is an opportunity to provide more, not fewer, homes. The issue is one of getting homes built, which should be the focus, not curtailing opportunity.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, from listening to this debate, I recognise that there is a certain amount of agreement around the Chamber. It seems, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Porter, that this is very much a question of balance. Of course right to buy was a wonderful thing for many people, but the right to have a roof over your head is also pretty important. Therefore, if you take it too far and there are no council houses to put vulnerable people into, you will have a real problem. It seems there is a consensus that could lead to the right way forward—namely, the right amount of houses being available for right to buy but preserving enough and, as has been said, building more to protect fragile communities.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for bringing this debate. We are in the middle of the most acute housing crisis in living memory. Too many are left without access to a safe and secure home.

To the noble Lords who have been leaders of councils, I say: so have I. For many years as a council leader, I struggled really hard to persuade our treasurer to find the funds to build homes, only to see them sold for less than it cost us to build them. That is why the Government are committed to working with councils and other providers of social housing to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.

We have heard much about aspiration. For the over a million people sitting on those waiting lists for a long time and the 117,000 families in temporary and emergency accommodation, social housing is their aspiration. Our job as a Government is to get the balance right between offering homes for sale and retaining stock for social rent. That balance is critical to solving our housing crisis.