Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions C, C1, D and D1, which are grouped together.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments relating to the no-let restriction. Lords Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is intended to reduce the no-let period to six months where the property has been demonstrably on the market and no suitable offers have been received for that period. The noble Lord and I, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have discussed this amendment at length and I thank them again for their continued engagement on this issue. The Government understand that there may be situations where landlords genuinely intend to sell their property but cannot do so. However, the reletting and remarketing restriction is one of the strongest safeguards we have in the Bill.

I know that many noble Lords agree with the restriction in principle but disagree with its length. The Government believe that the 12-month period will make it unprofitable for a landlord to abuse this ground. It is vital that these strong protections for tenants remain in place, and I want to be clear about the Government’s position and commitment. This is shared by Members in the other place, and today I was pleased to receive strong support from Shelter, citing research from the Nationwide Foundation that one in five landlord sale evictions does not result in a sale.

Lords Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would exempt shared owners from the re-letting and re-marketing restriction and other important restrictions. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking the time to meet, particularly during recess when he was kind enough to have meetings to discuss this important issue, and for his continued support for shared owners. I also thank him for his amendments in lieu: Amendments 19B, 19C and 19D.

The Government are very sympathetic to shared owners experiencing building safety issues and the particular challenges they face. We have already taken a number of steps outside the Bill to provide greater clarity for shared owners on what flexibilities and support they can expect from providers. These include new commitments in the update to the Government’s remediation acceleration plan, published in July. The noble Lord’s amendments in lieu acknowledge the unique circumstances in which shared owners operate, while not compromising on the core aim of the Bill to improve security of tenure in the sector. The Government are delighted to support his amendments and we encourage the House to agree to them. We will continue to work with the noble Lord as the Bill is implemented. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will address Amendment 18, Motion C1 in place of Motion C. To recap very briefly on the substance of the amendment, the Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property fails to sell.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me for interrupting, but we were on Motion B and I was under the impression that the noble Lord wanted to speak on Motion B, but it appears that he has gone to Motion C. Am I correct?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My mistake, I will sit down and restart later.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

Oh, they are in the same group. It is not my afternoon, is it? Pray continue.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

We could set this to music if the noble Baroness wishes. Where did I get to? I will not start again, the House has been too patient, but I will start halfway through.

The Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell. They are not allowed to re-let it for 12 months. The property must stand empty and unrented for that 12 months. The amendment does not quibble with that punitive intention of the Bill. It accepts that, in order to prevent a few bad landlords trying to abuse the system, all property, belonging to all landlords, that fails to sell will stand empty and be impossible to live in for anyone seeking rental accommodation. The amendment simply sets that punitive period at six months and requires the landlord to furnish proof to a court of a genuine and reasonable, including reasonable pricing, attempt to sell the property during that time.

The House of Commons debate on this amendment acknowledged that the landlord being hit with 12 months of no income, along with the costs of their property standing empty for a year, is a problem. However, this was considered to be “relatively minor” and simply an

“inconvenience … to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell”.

It was claimed that it is “far too easy” for

“any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict”

to abuse the proposed period of six months, and that

“landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/25; cols. 651, 646, 652.]

I am sorry to say that no facts were presented, quantified or examined, and no evidence was provided, just these dismissive anti-landlord assertions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cromwell]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 18”.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I understand that at this stage I should be very brief, so I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that I also speak to many landlords and tenants groups. Indeed, I have put amendments down on behalf of tenants groups during this process. I thank all those who have spoken. I particularly admire the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to see into the mind of landlords who fail to sell their property and know what they would do next. I do question his maths, but perhaps we can come to that outside the Chamber. Selling with a sitting tenant is definitely a different matter to selling without a tenant on board. I simply say this: it is clear to me, and I hope to the House, that a rational basis suggests that a 12-month-long inability to rent out your property is disproportionate. Six months is still punitive, but it is effective. I have sought compromise on this in vain. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House and beg to move Motion C1.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 253, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group. It is an embarrassment that in our small, wealthy island nation, there are, according to APHA, over 2,000 non-native species, of which 10% to 15% become invasive and pose a serious threat to our biodiversity and environment. We must make intensive efforts to control and eliminate those species to protect our own besieged biodiversity.

The grey squirrel has pushed the red squirrel out of much of our woodlands and now destroys countless young trees every year, making it almost futile to plant native broadleaves in my home county of Devon and many other parts of the UK. What progress is being made with the research into the sterilisation of grey squirrels, and when will that treatment be expected to be made generally available?

Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed have invaded our river systems, displacing our native flora and upsetting the ecology for animals and fish living in those waterways. I commend the Tamar invasives group for the work it has done in controlling these invasive plants under the auspices of the Tamar Valley National Landscape in that area. What similar work is being done elsewhere in the country to eradicate these species?

Signal crayfish are present in many waterways and reservoirs, spreading disease that kills our native crayfish and predating on our migratory and freshwater fish species. Muntjac deer are spreading rapidly across our country, feeding on our crops, damaging fences and stripping the bark off young trees. Numbers are out of control.

The purpose of these amendments is twofold. The first is to raise awareness of the damage that these and other species are doing to our environment. The Government need to change attitudes to these animals, birds and plants so that everyone in this country takes steps to eliminate them from their gardens, farms and land.

The second purpose is equally serious. I cannot see how any environmental delivery project funded by this new nature restoration fund can be judged to be successful if non-native invasive species are still present on the land within the project after five years. It simply does not make sense that the EDP can have done an acceptable job on the site if those species remain in place, attacking our much-loved trees, brown squirrels and aquatic species.

Should the Committee support this amendment, I fear there is a risk that Natural England could then choose sites that are not infected with those species. Can the Minister assure the Committee that would not be the case? I think that all who know and love our beautiful countryside appreciate how difficult a task it would be to achieve this even in these limited areas, but it is not impossible, and it is crucial. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, introducing his own amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I start by confirming my support for all three of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Amendments 253, 296 and 297. However, I caution the use of “non-native”; it is the invasive aspect that is the problem. What could be more English than a rose? What could be a more typical English fruit than an apple? Both of them originate from central Asia—they are not natives. However, I entirely take the point about invasive species.

Amendment 60, already debated, referred to guidance on planting along highways. There was much discussion about trees and wildflowers. I enjoyed reading what type of tree the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, might represent, which might repay people who want to look it up in Hansard. One plant that grows along our highways which was not mentioned in the earlier debate is ragwort, the bright yellow flowering plant seen everywhere alongside our highway network. Through lack of enforcement of existing legislation, this invasive plant has become a menace to the environment, animals and agriculture, and action to control it is long overdue. Once it has flowered, ragwort produces seeds that, like dandelions which people may be more familiar with, come with a downy parachute which means they float far and wide on the breeze across the countryside and into farmland, where they take root, produce more seed, and so on.

Ragwort is poisonous to livestock, and it is not advisable for people to touch it with their bare hands, although I spend many unhappy hours pulling it up myself with my own bare hands, as I am sure many other Members do. Grazing animals leave it alone while it is growing, but where a field is cut for hay or silage, as is the case on many grassland farms, it gets incorporated into the bales, animals cannot detect it, and they are poisoned by it. Finally, areas set aside for environmental benefits, such as margins for wildflowers, quickly become choked with ever-expanding stands of ragwort.

So much for the biology; what about the law? Ragwort is what is called a notifiable weed, and landowners and occupiers have a legal obligation to control and remove it, particularly if it is spreading, causing a nuisance, or posing a risk to livestock. The Weeds Act 1959 and the subsequent code of practice on how to prevent the spread of ragwort outline these responsibilities. Failure to comply can lead to legal action, and/or the relevant authorities can issue a clearance notice requiring action to be taken to remove it. Unfortunately, this has not been enforced for many years.

As part of my research in tabling this amendment, I asked a Written Question about notices or prosecutions in the last 12 months. I was informed:

“In the past 12 months, no notices in relation to ragwort control have been served to National Highways, and there have been no prosecutions under the Weeds Act 1959 or the Code of Practice”.


I would bet that we could go back a lot more years than the last 12 months and the result would be exactly the same.

That is not good enough. Defra and the Environment Agency need to enforce the existing law and regulations. The Bill will create new areas of land controlled by a quango. This amendment specifically identifies this problem plant and requires that at least in the development of new infrastructure, proper controls are carried out, and—my favourite theme—enforced where necessary. That would be a start.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to speak on behalf of the Cinnabar moth, a very handsome creature which is nourished on ragwort. Ragwort is an ordinary part of the downland scene. It is an entirely natural, native plant in its right place. I agree that it can become a pest in some other places, but our downland is grazed by horses. They have the sense not to eat the thing, and we do not make hay out of it.

It is a plant that, in its ordinary place, you can work your way around. It is where someone leaves a field derelict, and it becomes a sea of yellow and the seeds are drifting everywhere, that something needs to be done about it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that we should be better, but we should not be too frightened of ragwort. It is not hugely disastrous for agriculture or livestock, in my experience of it.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I invite the noble Lord to spend a series of weekends with me and my family pulling up ragwort across the organic grassland, which we bale for organic dairy farmers. After that, he may consider that ragwort is fine in his backyard but that, for those who are trying to feed the nation, it is a serious problem. Our livestock do leave it alone—he is quite right that they have the good sense to eat around it—but once it is baled and dead, they eat it.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

The prospect of spending weekends with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seems well worth some ragwort pulling.

I also sound a note of caution in respect of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough, as they are drafted, particularly Amendment 296. Animals such as the grey squirrel and the muntjac come and go as they please; you cannot eradicate them from an area. You can try pushing them back, but we are stuck with them until we develop a national solution. You should not penalise an EDP because it happens to be infected by them.

Also, are we referring to the list that is generated by retained EU regulation 1143/2014 when we are referring to invasive non-native species? This list consists mostly of things that are troublesome in much warmer climates. A lot of things that cause problems for us, such as sycamore, would not be included at all.

I am cautious. It is hard to eliminate invasive species from waterways. Unless you control the whole waterway and have a really integrated, careful and expensive campaign over several years, it is very difficult to do more than just reduce. By and large, we should learn to live with these invaders. I say this as a lifelong botanist. We have; we enjoy and celebrate the thousands of plants which have come to live here, mostly courtesy of gardeners, and which play a small part in the native flora.

There are very few plants that cause a huge problem in terms of invasiveness. Animals can be difficult. Insects are difficult but really hard to control. Anyway, when it comes to the flora of this country, we should recognise what we mean by “native”. If we go back to the ice ages, you are talking just about birch and a bit of Scots pine. The ice ages crushed the European temperate flora against the Alps. As a result, we have a really depleted flora in Europe compared with China or North America, which both had southern refuges that their flora could get to. You really see that in the case of forestry; we have 30 woody species in this country. Every year or two, a disease threatens another of them. I am starting to lose my mature oak trees to acute oak decline, having lost a lot of ash and all the elm.

A healthy temperate woodland has hundreds of species in it. That a few are finding their way back from gardens, diversifying and getting us back to a level of diversity that we ought to have is to be celebrated. Instead of this fuss about what is non-native, let us celebrate the immigrants. Surely the party opposite agrees with that.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Without referring back as far as the ice age or taking as long as that to talk about it, my amendment relates specifically to one plant. Is the noble Lord suggesting that we do not apply the existing legislation? That is what my amendment seeks—merely to apply the law as it stands now through enforcement, not to create new law.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, where it is troubling serious agriculture, yes, we should enforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

On a lighter note, the noble Lord introduced the issue of hereditaries; many of us are indeed invasive species as we came over with the Normans.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: does he want to accept these invasive plants? What about Japanese knotweed, which is in the schedule of wildflowers and illegal to perpetuate? Once it takes root, it is very difficult to get rid of. If it is cut, tiny things will spread. Is he still in favour of Japanese knotweed?

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Cromwell]

253B: Clause 55, page 92, line 29, at end insert—
“(9) In designing, creating, implementing, monitoring or enforcing any EDP, Natural England, or any other body undertaking some or all of these functions, must ensure that legal obligations concerning notifiable weeds under the Weeds Act 1959 and the associated Code of Practice, including ragwort, are publicised, observed and enforced, including ensuring that all reasonable steps are taken to remove and destroy such plants.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the legal obligation on landowners and occupiers to report, control and remove notifiable weeds on land acquired for an EDP. The amendment specifically refers to ragwort, which is poisonous to livestock and has spread rapidly in recent years.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I hope that Defra will take into account the need to enforce the existing legislation when public bodies are running EDPs, because many public bodies are not doing so at the moment. On that basis, I do not move my amendment.

Amendment 253B not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I know. There is nothing to prevent the EDP deeming that the money raised should not go to replace or improve something near what I have lost, but rather could be spent in beautiful Lancashire. As a result, while my family up there may gain from that benefit, people in Surrey would lose the benefit twice. They lose the site within scope of the development, and they lose the money that should be there to rectify that loss.

Finally, I will speak to Amendment 308A, which seeks to prevent other departments, but mainly the Treasury, effectively siphoning off money for non-related uses. Clause 71(5)(d) allows for Natural England to pass moneys collected under the levy to another public body. Indeed, it goes so far as to say that it would require Natural England to pass it to another public authority. A little later, the rather gloomy entry of Clause 72(7) says:

“The regulations may permit or require a public authority to collect any nature restoration levy charged by Natural England”,


the implication of which is worthy of debate in itself. Which public body do the Government foresee taking on this role if not Natural England? I will leave that to others if they wish to go down that route.

This amendment protects the funds to wherever these moneys may go. It means, ultimately, that their original purpose shall remain. I think everyone can unite around this, from sceptics of the Bill to those supporting it, because it means that money for nature should remain for nature and not be subsumed into a general pot. I am afraid I have the scars from working in government and know all too well what happens if things are not ring-fenced clearly.

As an aside, there is a precedent here. The other day—I cannot remember when—we discussed the community infrastructure levy, and the 2010 regulations include a ring fence to ensure that the income spent is on infrastructure, no matter who is doing the spending. That is in Regulation 59, if noble Lords wish to check. Ultimately, the nature restoration fund needs to be protected and clearly defined in the Bill, and not allowed to be open to interpretation or postponed to secondary legislation.

The remaining amendments in this group in my name, namely Amendments 310, 312 and 314, all seek to tighten further the accountability and transparency around any decision by Natural England to fund its own administrative activities from the nature restoration fund.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

It was a pleasure to follow the last two speakers, as they adroitly picked their way through the thickets of these various amendments. I will briefly touch on theirs before getting to mine. As regards Amendments 256 and 313, where land is CPO’d from its owner, it is manifestly unfair to include in the levy the cost of acquisition. It is reminiscent of the victim of an execution being made to pay for the bullet. As regards Amendments 307, 312 and 314, I support clear limits being set on the ability of quangos—particularly quangos in a monopoly situation—being able to overegg their charges.

Amendment 307A in my name requires Natural England to provide a proper budget breakdown for the use of levy funds requested from a developer. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a required levy could be quantified in any other way. In the event that there is an underspend of the developer’s levy, then the amount not spent to meet the purpose of the levy should be promptly returned to the developer. It has always been my understanding that the specific purpose of the levy is to enable the offsetting of environmental degradation caused by specific developments. Such environmental degradation is to be defined, calculated and quantified by Natural England or its appointees to arrive at a numerical amount of the levy sum payable by the developer. Natural England has confirmed to me that that sum will in each case include an amount for contingency. That is a normal part of any budgeting process for what could be a complex project.

Where the system departs from normal practice is: what happens to any unspent funds once the quantum of environmental benefit that the developer has paid for is achieved? When I asked Natural England executives about this, they told me to my great surprise that any unused funds would simply be kept by Natural England and spent on unspecified further work. The levy amounts are likely to be substantial. It is not unreasonable to anticipate millions of pounds in some cases. To allow Natural England to retain any unspent funds for its own purposes flies in the face of standard contractual practice. It is also an open invitation to overprice the levy for any project as a means of generating revenue for Natural England above and beyond what is reasonably required for the agreed environmental benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, we are really getting under the bonnet here, looking at the minutiae of the EDP, and we are missing the bigger picture.

I speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on Amendment 307A, and Amendment 256, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. We find ourselves in this situation because the organisations with the statutory duties, powers, staff, income and systems to clean up our rivers, in so far as nutrient neutrality is concerned, have not been doing so. Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the water companies in particular and the drainage boards are all in scope. They have got their job, but they have not been doing it.

I am concerned about the levy. We are talking about how we are going to charge this levy, but we are not really talking about where the money is coming from to deliver the EDPs. In effect, Part 3 lets these statutory undertakings off the hook. Instead, it falls to those people who do not have the powers or responsibilities, such as councils and local developers. If my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was in her place, I am sure she would intervene and tell us that it will also fall to the small builders and small companies that spend money in local supply chains and so on. Here, we have the ultimate moral hazard; it is the reward for failure.

I do not deny that the costs of these EDPs could be apportioned appropriately across the canvas that is required for the purposes of the EDP and in proportion to the number of units it is going to sell. However, I am disappointed that the Bill does not require those with the responsibilities—Defra, the Environment Agency and so forth—to have the first pull. It is an omission, and one we should place on the record and return to later on Report.

I want to question the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. He talks about the surplus. In a previous group, I explained how I have been involved in this for some time. There will be no surplus, because we are talking about 80-year tail liabilities. The money that is ponied up front to deliver an environmental improvement is going to have to be jam-spread over 80 years, in the case of nutrient neutrality, or 30 years, in the case of biodiversity net gain, and whatever other regulations come along. We are not going to know whether there is enough money in the kitty until year 79. I do not think this is fully understood.

Other noble Lords in previous groups have given numbers. Earlier, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke about £1,900 versus £2,300, and he was concerned—on the current account, if you like, or this year’s P&L—what the extra margin might be. But there has been a fundamental misunderstanding of how the accountancy works. That is why I wanted to explain it in an earlier group, and why I will talk about it in a later group when we get to private involvement. We need to have proper accounting standards for how we will approach accounting for these 80-year tail liabilities.

Nevertheless, until we do, when we are setting this levy it should be on the basis that those who are required to and paid to do this work should carry the first burden. Otherwise, small family building businesses will be cross-subsidising the large water companies which raise business water rates and should be upgrading their own sewage plants. Instead, the owners and purchasers of new homes—young families trying to get their foot on the ladder—are, in effect, going to be cross-subsidising. EDPs should be explicit in asking those who are paid and have the duty to do this work to do it first, and then, if there is any requirement left over thereafter, that has to be apportioned to the developers and, in due course, passed on to the purchasers of new homes.

In this group we have really only scratched the surface as regards the costs, accountancies and financial models. We need to do a lot more work on this, otherwise the money will run out in year 42 or 52. It does not really matter when, because we are not going to get to year 80, and, in the meantime, the costs of EDP and annual inspections, renewals and accountancy and everything else have not been factored in at all. This is not at all straightforward. As we get to Report, we will have to dig much more deeply into who pays, who should pay, and how we are going to value these tail liabilities. It is almost an actuarial problem. Until we do that, there will be no money to go back to anybody.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Very briefly, I found that a fascinating exposition and would happily discuss it further outside the Chamber with the noble Lord. The logical corollary of it is that it is therefore almost impossible to calculate what the levy should be, because you are dealing with unknowns into an 80-year period. But let us not discuss it now—let us move on.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree—let us not discuss it now.

Amendment 309A in my name may not be required, but I would like some reassurance from the Minister. As currently drafted, the Bill outlines Natural England’s role under the nature restoration levy in spending funds and in monitoring the implementation of the EDPs—monitoring, as it were, the inputs and actions that are needed under the EDPs. There is no explicit duty as far as I understand—but I would like clarification —to ensure that the plans result in real ecological improvements and outcomes on the ground. By that I mean not just whether the EDP has done was it said it would but whether it has delivered the goods as a result of those actions. My amendment would make sure that Natural England had to demonstrate that the outcomes planned were being delivered and the plan was working.

The only requirement I can find—I am sure the Minister will say that this is sufficient—is that the EDP reporting requirements that are laid on Natural England in Clause 62 already ensure that it will report on whether the conservation measures are having or have had their intended effect. It would be good to have confirmation that she believes this means that it has to report on outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct, and there are provisions for that in the process.

Turning to Amendment 307, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, I note that he is a non-native species of Surrey; I hope he is not an invasive species of Surrey. His amendment would limit what administrative expenses could be included within a charging schedule to those included in Section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. These powers were drafted long before the NRF and extend solely to charging for providing a service and for licences. Natural England’s role in the NRF is wider than simply providing a service. It will be drafting EDPs, conducting surveys and analysis to work out the most appropriate conservation measures, and consulting on them and presenting them to the Secretary of State. It will subsequently have administration costs as part of implementation, such as contracts with service providers and administration of levy collection. Many noble Lords have also referred to the need for a proper scientific basis, and it will be important that it be able to deliver that scientific evidence.

As mentioned previously the Government’s objective is for the NRF and Natural England’s role in delivering it to operate on a cost-recovery basis, which would not be possible if we were to accept this amendment. To ensure value for money for the taxpayer, it is important that Natural England can recover all appropriate costs as part of the levy.

I turn to Amendment 308A from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. We agree with the noble Lord. The Government are clear that money from nature restoration levies will be used to deliver the EDP and secure the necessary conservation measures. While Natural England will be the organisation drafting EDPs on behalf of the Secretary of State, it will not always be best placed to deliver the conservation measures, so we will work with other bodies when securing those measures. We will set out a procurement strategy in due course that will speak to the issues the noble Lord is driving at through his amendment.

When Natural England works with or through partners it will remain bound by the provision in Clause 71 to

“spend money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy on conservation measures that relate to the environmental feature in relation to which the levy is charged”.

Money used in this way cannot simply be used for other purposes. For that reason, Clause 71 still requires that this money be monitored and accounted for. On the basis that there is always a link between the levy and the delivery of conservation measures, regardless of whether Natural England is the body delivering them, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 309, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government have tabled an amendment making it explicit that Natural England can only deliver network measures—measures that do not directly address the impact on a protected site but improve the same feature elsewhere—where it considers that they will make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question than measures that address the impact of development locally.

Under these proposals, Natural England will be required to state how it reached this conclusion with reference to the best available scientific evidence. Crucially, network measures could never be used where to do so would result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat, as this would inherently not pass the overall improvement test. More generally, the amendment would limit actions within the boundary of a local planning authority that may not align with the ecological boundary of, or environmental impact on, a protected site. I trust that this speaks to the substance of Amendment 309, given that the Government’s amendment provides an ecological lock on the use of these measures by requiring Natural England to pay regard to the need to protect the overall coherence of the relevant site network.

Amendment 310, also from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations covering all the matters listed within Clause 71(3). There are many indispensable elements to the levy regulations that will be brought forward to ensure that this legislation can operate effectively. However, framing the power as a “may” rather than a “must” provides the Secretary of State with discretion when deciding whether it is necessary to bring forward specific requirements in regulations.

I turn to Amendment 312 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The Government agree that transparency is vital throughout the EDP process. That is why the Bill already includes reporting requirements at the midpoint and endpoint of an EDP that will include information about the cost of conservation measures. In addition, Natural England will be required to publish annual reports across the NRF that will include a summary of Natural England’s accounts, with information about the total amount of levy received and the amount spent on conservation measures each year. Through this process, we are confident that there will be an adequate level of transparency in respect of both costings and expenditure.

I turn to Amendments 314 and 315, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Blencathra. As I set out previously, removing Natural England’s ability to recover administrative expenses would require the Government or Natural England—and as a result, the taxpayer—to shoulder the cost of creating EDPs and any administrative costs of implementing them. Similarly, removing Natural England’s ability to include previous expenses would directly impact this and remove the Government’s ability to forward conservation fund measures to Natural England, which would then recover the money through the levy when development proposals come forward before repaying the Government. Furthermore, limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure would restrict its flexibility to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and plan for unforeseen circumstances. Allowing these costs to be included within a charging schedule will ensure the long-term viability of the nature restoration fund and provide greater certainty that environmental outcomes will be achieved.

In a similar vein to previous amendments, Amendment 301A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would require that money accepted through the nature restoration levy be classified as additional to the core funding of Defra or Natural England. I can assure the noble Lord that the legislation is clear that the nature restoration levy is provided to Natural England to deliver on the EDP and cannot be used for purposes outside the EDP. As part of this, and to ensure transparency, regulations may require Natural England to account separately for any money received through the nature restoration levy that would prevent this from being merged with central budgets.

Although the levy can be used by Natural England for administrative expenses in connection with an EDP, this must, as the drafting suggests, be in connection with an EDP. This might cover the costs of drafting and implementing a specific EDP, or a proportion of the cost of setting up a digital platform for the NRF generally, but the nature restoration levy would not affect the core budget of either Natural England or Defra, which remains a matter for the Government. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel comfortable to withdraw his amendment.

On Amendment 307A, the nature restoration fund is being established to support development, so it is vital that the nature restoration levy does not undermine the economic viability of development while still being able to secure sufficient funding to deliver the necessary conservation measures to meet the overall improvement test. There is no legislative requirement to include contingency in the levy, as framed by this amendment. However, it is important that the regulations allow for circumstances where it may be necessary or prudent to include a precautionary buffer to support the delivery of conservation measures, whether through back-up conservation measures or simply because the primary conservation measures may cost more than originally anticipated.

Crucially, a draft charging schedule will include details of how the levy has been calculated. If a contingency were included in the charging schedule, this would form part of the draft EDP, which will be subject to consultation before being considered by the Secretary of State. While I am confident that the nature restoration levy will be set at a fair price that supports development, the use of EDPs will remain voluntary in all but the most exceptional circumstances. A developer is therefore free to use the existing system if they do not think the EDP or the levy is appropriate. Developers will have full clarity on what they are paying—

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I thank the Minister for explaining those points, but I just want to clarify something. I think that we were both at the same meeting where I challenged Natural England on this, and it assured me that there would be a contingency. For a large project, I think it is perfectly sensible to have a contingency, but when I questioned what would happen to the contingency, or indeed any unspent funds, after of meeting the required level of environmental reparation, I was assured, to my astonishment, that it would not be handed back as excess but would spend it on some more good environmental stuff, above and beyond what was anticipated for the levy. That is a sleight of hand, if I can put it in those terms, to use money that was not needed for the purpose for which it was provided for another purpose. Perhaps, at best, there is a difference in understanding between the department and Natural England, which it would be helpful to clarify.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point; I will attempt to clarify that for him. There are potentially significant complexities and legal and financial liabilities introduced by requiring the return of the money with interest to developers. Given that developers will have already received the benefit they paid for, it would be more proportionate, and better for nature, for Natural England to use any excess funds to the benefit of the environmental feature. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I think that the Minister has just confirmed exactly what I said, which is that if there is any money left over, it will be spent on some other good stuff. That is rather unfair on the developer who has paid for something, and now the excess that was not spent is being used on something else.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I have listened very carefully. The developer knows what he has paid for. The developer has bought something. The developer has purchased an 80-year project, but he has not bought anything until year 79. I We have to get our heads around the money side and the financials—we are not going to know. I will dwell on this a bit more on a later group. The suggestion that someone has bought something and it is done and dusted on day one is a false premise; we have to understand that.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The noble Lord and I are starting to repeat ourselves, so perhaps we can talk about it outside. However, that is not the reply that the Minister has given me.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am happy to continue the conversation on this, but I would reiterate that it is up to the developer whether they enter into an EDP. They will have a charging schedule set out before them and, if they feel the contingency is too great, they can argue it or not take part in the EDP.

On Amendment 309A, tabled by my noble friend Baroness Young, I reassure my noble friend that the intention of her amendment is already captured. I agree that it is crucial that Natural England ensures the effective delivery of conservation measures, which is why Clause 55 sets out that the conservation measures in an EDP

“are to be taken by, or on behalf of, Natural England … to … address the environmental impact of development”,

as well as

“contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the identified environmental feature”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Curry, because he knows a lot, and I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, because otherwise, he might poison my breakfast—but on this occasion, I feel I have to comment.

I understand entirely that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is worried that the emerging, very valuable nature markets should not be eclipsed totally by the levy and Natural England’s role. However, some of the amendments in this group tip the balance too far the other way and say that nature markets must be the first port of call and not considered alongside all other potential organisations that can deliver the right solution for the right site for a particular EDP.

The existing nature market products are very valuable; some of them are less so. However, there are a shedload of organisations and groups that could deliver the requirements of an EDP for Natural England, such as some of the large charities, the ENGOs, farmers, groups of farmers, other landowners and the Forestry Commission. The role of Natural England must be to consider which of those organisations, or groups of them, should be the best way forward, including private nature markets but not giving a pre-eminent place to them and them preventing Natural England choosing perhaps the most effective partner, who would be someone who is local, onsite, available, already working in providing nature outcomes and could do more work to help with that EDP.

I would be particularly unkeen that we avoid Natural England being able to do it itself. On occasion, if there is work that can be delivered to take forward an EDP next to a national nature reserve that is already managed by Natural England, why should Natural England not simply do that by extension? It would be the most sensible proposition.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I would like to assure the Committee that I am looking forward to many convivial and toxin-free breakfasts with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the future—in case anybody was worried that I had, in some way, threatened her with anything else. That was far away from anything I would wish to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Thank you. See you for breakfast!

On a more serious note, I ask the Minister perhaps to write to me to set out what these opportunities are, how they will be made available, and how the appropriate payment rates will be determined. I am not suggesting that she can quantify them now, but what is the process? I do not think the Bill makes that clear, unless I have missed it.

I will take the three amendments in my name as a group, as they are linked. They address the actual delivery of the conservation measures set out in environmental delivery plans, once those have been established. Clause 76(3) recognises that and says:

“Natural England may pay another person to take conservation measures”.


But the Bill lacks a clear, simple and manageable series of steps for Natural England to follow to achieve that. My Amendment 318B would turn the “may” into a “must”, meaning that third parties should be engaged. Incidentally, I do not think that those would be entirely commercial; they could be non-governmental organisations that are able to deliver.

My Amendments 320B and 325ZA set out a series of rational steps for delivering conservation works, which are: first, hold a competitive tender process; secondly, if there are no willing bidders, seek to buy the land at market value; thirdly, if that really proves impossible, proceed to compulsory purchase as a last resort. These amendments would strengthen the Bill by setting out a clear set of sequential and proportionate process stages for the all-important implementation of conservation works. This would be helpful both to Natural England and to those wishing to engage with delivering the EDP process. I hope the Government will recognise this as a helpful clarification that will support the effective implementation of the plans under Natural England supervision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendment I have tabled. I removed a group from the debate, noble Lords will be pleased to know, and thought this was the appropriate place to put it. I start by supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Roborough. The human rights memorandum accompanying the Bill is frankly on the edge of trying to suggest that this could well be allowable on the basis of it being for the public benefit. Clearly, if the land is no longer needed and has not been approved for use by the Secretary of State, it must go back to the original owner without question. If not, it would be a further infraction of land removed. I appreciate that there may have been some compensation in the interim; perhaps the details of that need to be sorted out.

My amendment goes all the way to page 119 in this Bill and then back to Clauses 83 and 84. It suggests that powers to acquire land compulsorily do not apply in relation to Crown land, and then subsection (10) defines Crown land in that regard. Subsection (10) says that Crown land means land in which there is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest, but Crown land, as I may have explained to the Committee, is also land belonging to any government department. I appreciate that I do not know the full conventions for discussing matters regarding the royal family, but I give the example of Dartmoor, which has been a combination of Duchy of Cornwall land, part of Dartmoor National Park and privately held. It is also a significant landscape, probably of the type that could well have EDP proposals put there, ideally fixing the SSSIs that are not quite so good at the moment.

My main focus is government land. Perhaps I am being too strong, but it seems somewhat heinous that the Government can start going after all other private land. Bearing in mind how much land this Government own—I think the MoD is the fourth-largest landowner in the country—why does this not apply? Quite often, with bits of government land around the country, Homes England try to get some of it for housing, and so on. But it is an exceptionally laborious process while trying to achieve a government outcome. Departments such as the MoD often want the full market value, as if it were a commercial enterprise when selling to Homes England.

So, I am concerned. I would not mind if we excluded the bit that was the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster, but we should not be excluding government land from being potentially available to undertake the exercise that we want it to as a Government and Parliament intend. I therefore encourage the Government to think again and perhaps to rescope Clause 91(10) to have only the very specific narrow elements of that definition, as set out in Part 13, Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to exclude only those held by the relevant Crown and Duchy interests that are not government land.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 292, which requires that, where land has been acquired under compulsory purchase but is not then used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the Secretary of State should seek to return it to the landowner. Surely that is natural justice. However, it leaves open what happens to any compulsory purchase funds that have been paid to the landowner. To my mind, the funds should be returned if they wish to take back the land.

I draw the Committee’s attention to evidence from HS2, including coverage on the BBC—is there a debate we can have without reference to HS2? Land was compulsorily purchased, but when it was decided that the land was not needed, it was offered back to the farmer in question to buy at a far higher price, or the so-called market value, which is a fine example of profiteering on the back of compulsory purchase. I also remind the Committee of the concerns I evidenced on Monday about the bullying behaviour of agents acting for authorities with compulsory purchase powers. Despite what it says about it being a last resort in theory, when the agents are motivated to acquire the land as quickly and cheaply as possible, different tactics often apply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group relates to the powers in Part 3 for Natural England to make a compulsory purchase for purposes connected with the taking of conservation measures. The Government have taken a cautious approach in respect of compulsory purchase powers, but it is clear that this needs to be available to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure that conservation measures are delivered. However, the Government recognise the need for such powers to be tightly constrained, and I am confident that, when considered alongside existing safeguards, the proposed amendments are not necessary.

I turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, which seek to require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order in two different scenarios. The first is when Natural England uses these powers to purchase a piece of land and the Secretary of State later decides not to make the EDP in question. I can assure the noble Lords that this will never happen, as Natural England cannot make a compulsory purchase before the EDP has been made.

The second scenario is when an EDP is revoked. Where an EDP is revoked, any land secured through compulsory purchase may still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Requiring land to be returned automatically would risk removing a crucial way of delivering remedial measures and potentially damaging the relevant environmental feature.

Where land has been compulsorily purchased and is not needed, and it would genuinely be surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply. The land would be offered back to the former owner, their successor or sitting tenants at market value, provided that the land has not materially changed and none of the exceptions under the rules applied. These rules are well-established, as we discussed in a debate the other day, so I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

Moving to Amendment 323, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I assure the noble Lords that the subject of their amendment is already addressed in the Bill. CPO powers may be used only in connection with the taking of conservation measures, as defined in the legislation. Amendment 324 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is part of a private dwelling. I would first like to assure noble Lords that this type of land is incredibly unlikely to meet the high bar for compulsory purchase or to be approved by the Secretary of State. The use, or future use, of land will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when approving the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight, and noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act 1998. I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned that himself.

Finally, Amendment 352 would extend the compulsory purchase powers to Crown land. The CPO powers in the Bill are there to provide assurance that land can be acquired where necessary to ensure that an EDP can deliver the necessary conservation measures. Extending these powers to cover Crown land is unnecessary. To put it simply, if Natural England were to require Crown land for a conservation measure, that would be resolved between Natural England and the relevant authority. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 319 and will speak to Amendment 320. I would like a little bit of clarification on Clause 76(3), which reads:

“Natural England may pay another person to take conservation measures”.


Surely that ought to be “an appropriate person, with the right qualifications, to take conservation measures”? I would be grateful if the Minister could expand a little on what the Government’s intention is on this. Could she also confirm that subsection (3) refers entirely to EDPs, not to wider powers? It just says:

“Natural England may pay another person to take conservation measures.”


If the noble Baroness can help with that, I would be grateful. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have every sympathy with these amendments, which reflect wider concerns expressed about the capabilities of Natural England and those whom they will deploy, but I do wonder how they will work in practice. In that regard, I have three quick questions for the Minister.

First, will Natural England reveal to levy payers which organisations—and, equally importantly, which qualified individuals—will be given responsibility for using that levy payers’ money to deliver relevant EDPs, so that levy payers can, as stakeholders, have confidence in delivery? Secondly, will such levy payers be able to communicate with these individuals or organisations to learn of and discuss progress? Thirdly, how, and by whom, will these individuals or organisations be held to account for the work that they do?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to address Amendments 319 and 320, as introduced by my noble friend Lord Caithness—I thank him for that. These important amendments seek to ensure that future environmental delivery plans are delivered by people or bodies that have the appropriate capabilities necessary for conservation projects.

Environmental delivery plans are centralised schemes that will thus pull together more resources than have previously been designated to environmental initiatives. That means an increase in both scale and responsibility. Delivering plans at an increased scale necessitates that those responsible have the required expertise—not only industry knowledge, but larger-scale management capabilities. Amendment 320 particularly speaks to that, as it expands the potential providers to include bodies, allowing delivery to be overseen by a wider and more diversified group of people.

Responsibility is higher with EDPs, as the use of pooled resources—necessarily greater than case-by-case funds—increases the risk of wasteful externalities. This means that providers must be prudent and resourceful. It is therefore important that those entrusted with delivering EDPs have the relevant experience and qualifications to mitigate waste and mismanagement and maximise the effectiveness of those schemes. These amendments seek to ensure that those paid by Natural England have the requisite skills. I look forward to the Minister’s answer to that and to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 325 in this group but, first, I would like to support the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst. I echo what has been said about compulsory purchase orders. We live in a country that is meant to have property rights. What can be worse than forcibly removing property that someone rightfully owns? Which one of us would like our property to be compulsorily removed?

Generally, in the past, this has been done only for huge infrastructure projects—not that that makes it better for those whose property it affects. It has been rarely done, although we have just heard of a very awful example from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. However, I am sure that many of your Lordships will have read about the property removed to make way for HS2: the family farms that were taken and the homes that people had to leave. Do the general public really think this is a good thing? Surely, it is a human rights abuse. The Bill incentivises this approach by allowing acquiring agencies to buy the land at agricultural prices and then sell it on for development. We are meant to be making life easier and better for people, not causing utter misery.

I thank noble Lords who have allowed me to insert Amendment 325 into the group. Amendment 325 would insert new subsection (2A) into Clause 83 to ensure that fields used by people to graze their animals and high-quality agricultural land that could be used for food production cannot be compulsorily purchased by Natural England as part of its environmental delivery plans.

I spoke earlier in the debate about how one of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have these property rights. In the Bill, there are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier and for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply, as I just said, where it is required for new development.

I spoke last week about how high-quality agricultural land should be used to produce food, which is in proposed new paragraph (b) of this amendment, so I will not repeat all that we talked about then. I would like to focus on proposed new paragraph (a), which concerns

“land … that is in personal use for the grazing of animals”.

People who have a few fields, for horses, donkeys or maybe llamas, goats, the odd pet sheep or anything else, need those fields to keep their livestock and pets. These fields are often on the outskirts of villages or towns. They therefore look rather attractive for development but, if this land were removed, what would happen to the animals and livestock?

A while ago, the Prime Minister himself purchased a field, so that his mother could care for neglected donkeys. Sadly, she has now died and the field has been sold, but what would have happened if this field had been taken while it was being used for the donkeys? In short, as I have said before, I believe that compulsory purchase—seizing someone’s property—is against human rights and should be used by a Government in only the most extreme of circumstances, and that land that is being utilised for family animals should never be considered.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I start by declaring that I have shares in a family company that owns a farm in the Midlands. To avoid giving a Second Reading speech, and to save us all quite a lot of time, I will jump over what I was going to say on Amendment 210 and just say that I agree thoroughly with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Sandhurst, on those matters. After all, so-called hope value is just another term for what the market is prepared to pay—in other words, market value.

When we look at land, the owner may already have paid inheritance tax on it, invested in its maintenance and improvement, and spent substantial sums, time and effort seeking planning permission. For the state or local authority simply to swipe the increase in value that the owner has nurtured and invested in over the years is not only deeply unjust but a powerful disincentive to bring forward land for development, for EDPs or anything else.

There is a different perspective, at least in the case of land: the increase of value may be derived from societal need—for example, space for housing—rather than entirely from the efforts and investments of the owner of that land. As such, perhaps society should be entitled to at least a share of the uplift in value. But it already is. The state, without lifting a finger, receives at least 20% capital gains tax on the price achieved by all vendors and other very valuable benefits in exchange for granting planning permission—in the form of planning conditions, Section 106 agreements and so on.

We will be discussing the closely related matter of compulsory purchase shortly in subsequent amendments, but this is on hope value. In February 2025, the Compulsory Purchase Association, in its response to the consultation on the process and rules for compulsory purchase, had strong objections to the removal of hope value on the grounds that it would—I will try to list these briefly: make the development process slower and more complex; produce distortions in a two-tier market with some land taken from its owners subject to the removal of hope value via compulsory purchase and some land sold at true market price; discourage developers and owners from promoting land for allocation or development; encourage owners to fight attempts to compel them to part with their property; and have equalities impacts on the human rights of those affected—for example, through potential abuse by acquiring authorities and time pressure put on owners to accept terms. As one lawyer in a government department put it to me recently, compulsory purchase brings people to the table. I would argue that it brings them to their knees. Finally, it would damage the reputation of the compulsory purchase process as a fair and equal one.

There is a case for society to capture some of the value from development. As I have tried briefly to illustrate, society already does so in the form of significant tax and planning conditions. The real issue is not to confiscate hope value but to ensure that land, once given planning permission by the state, is actually developed. This requires, first, a review of how long a planning permission can run before being lost, and, secondly, an end to the practice of a planning permission being acquired with the expectation that, for example, affordable housing percentages will later be haggled downwards. Contractual obligations in this area need to be far tougher. Putting together the time limit and this contractual aspect with limited planning permissions would address issues such as land banking, which are the subject of other amendments. I support this amendment because such state confiscations would be an economic mistake and a deeply negative pressure on the possibility of land being brought forward voluntarily. I look forward, albeit with some scepticism, to hearing the Minister’s response to this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cromwell]

217: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause—
“Compulsory purchase for planning and development: code of practice(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice to be followed by all bodies or individuals exercising powers of compulsory purchase for the purposes of planning and development.(2) On publication of the code of practice, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish—(a) an enforcement mechanism for the code of practice, including establishing a responsible body or individual for monitoring compliance,(b) penalties for non-compliance with the code of practice, and(c) a system for appealing against findings of non-compliance with the code of practice.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is to ensure that all acquiring authorities, and their agents, are bound by the normal code of conveyancing practice exercised by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have added their names to my amendment; they both apologise for being unable to be present in the Committee today.

This amendment would introduce a code of practice for compulsory purchase. It is widely accepted that, provided it is carried out appropriately, the state should have the right to acquire people’s homes and businesses in the interests of the nation. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that this amendment will not reopen the whole debate around that issue—I hope that buys me a few extra minutes.

Compulsory purchase was established on three assumptions: that it would be a quicker way to acquire land in the public interest; that it would make it possible to do that at a cost below market rates; and, importantly, that it would be a last resort if a voluntary sale could not be agreed—or so the theory went. However, anyone who is familiar with the process and practical realities of compulsory purchase will know that it is not at all quick or cost effective, with timelines running into years and with the costs of public inquiries, surveyors, lawyers and other actors on both sides.

It is widely acknowledged by professional agents—regardless of which side they work for—that, contrary to the original theory of compulsory purchase, the costs are always considerably higher if the party is being forced to sell rather than doing so on a voluntary basis. A consensus is often achievable, but only if the acquirer’s agent works with the seller rather than acting, frankly, as a bully boy for the Government.

The related issue of hope value was addressed in an earlier group. I will not cover it again beyond saying that the ability to compel property to be given up—I will not use the word “sold”—at well below its market value is, of course, attractive to those with the compulsory power but brutally costly and disruptive to those on the receiving end.

So how does this work in practice? The actual exercise of compulsory purchase powers has been devolved by the Government to a growing number of agents. These powers enable the agents to force people to leave their homes, to give up their businesses and their land, and to do so below market prices. Agents receiving these aggressive powers are commercial entities governed by financial and time-related performance targets.

Perhaps inevitably, these incentives and the imbalance of power between government-backed agents and ordinary citizens have created a real, growing problem around the behaviour of agents acting for the acquiring government authorities. Agents’ ability to compel a sale means all too often that they ignore normal conveyancing practices and refuse to recognise the justifiable concerns and interests of those whom they are forcing to sell, who are all but powerless and cannot realistically afford to challenge them. Noble Lords should be under no illusion: the lack of proper constraints means that a culture has widely grown up of the strong-arming and intimidation of those who are forced to sell by government-appointed agents.

There is also the profiteering practice that agents and authorities are sometimes shy of talking about, some of which has been referred to by others, of the acquiring authority then selling on the land for commercial purposes as a whole or in parts at full market value and pocketing the profits—with the agents, of course, paid to arrange the disposals.

To make the situation more real to anyone struggling to believe what I am saying or who is not involved in compulsory purchase, here are three quick live cases that I am aware of and, for clarity, in which I have no interests to declare. In the first case, both sides of a transaction had already agreed voluntarily to sell one field and give a right of access over an adjacent one. But at exchange the agent for the acquirer presented out of the blue a plan that included further land that was not part of the agreement. When this was pointed out, the acquirer’s agent immediately cut off communication and went to use compulsory purchase on all the land.

In the second case, a farmer was approached by an infrastructure provider for initial surveys. As the land was designated ecologically sensitive, he instructed an agent to prepare a bespoke licence agreement to give access to the provider. The infrastructure provider abruptly cut communications partway through the drafting process with no reason given and served a compulsory notice for access. The notice, and the developer’s subsequent trespass, then went on the wrong property and was not subject to discussion. Legal proceedings followed, which were inevitably costly for both sides and created substantial delays.

Case 3 is a simple quote from one forced seller:

“The bypass went straight through the middle of our farm taking 36 acres and all the buildings. Eight years after the bulldozers went in, we are still owed £136,000. When that is eventually paid, we will have to pay capital gains tax (at the new increased rate) on that compensation. How can it be fair that the government can destroy our farm and pay us in return a fraction of what it’s worth? … capital projects need to be built for the benefit of the nation, but surely in a decent, fair country, those concerned should be compensated with 100% of the value of the asset taken and paid before the land is occupied”.


I remind noble Lords that they were still waiting eight years later. I underline that there are many similar stories across this country.

Finally, I cannot resist mentioning HS2. Even on the northern section, which was cancelled two years ago, farmers still have barren strips of land through the middle of their farms, commandeered by HS2 but still not yet handed back. Matters are made worse with HS2 by the splitting of responsibilities between the Treasury and Department for Transport, with neither taking responsibility for the poor behaviour of agents. There are cases where farmers are not being paid for years and householders, having been given three months’ notice to get out, then not being paid for up to nine months. As one affected party put it—this is a different case—

“7 years after they unilaterally took our land we are still waiting for payment at just 70% of the value of the land and the matter is now being dragged through the courts”.


So what rules are there? The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has published baseline standards that it considers should apply to people acting for the acquiring authorities and the claimants. While I urge the Minister to look at and publicly endorse these standards, RICS has jurisdiction over its members only—not, for instance, over a non-member profession or a project management team.

Furthermore, crucially, these and other existing guidance rules do not cover two things that loom large in practical compulsory purchase experience: defining and preventing bullying tactics, and failure by agents or the acquiring bodies themselves to make prompt payment when due. We cannot go on in denial of this problem. That is why this amendment proposes the introduction of a proper code of practice for compulsory purchase: to negotiate and agree values et cetera in good faith, with the possibility of compulsion genuinely as the last resort rather than the starting point, and to pay full value in advance of taking possession, as is systematically the case in the commercial world.

I pose two questions to the Minister. First, does she share my belief that no one should be expected to give up their house, land or business only to find themself with no money to buy another house due to non-payment by the acquirer, or to have part or all of their business forcibly removed from them before payment? Secondly, does she agree with me that the Government’s announcement that they will issue financial penalties to persistently late-paying businesses should include penalties on late-paying agents and other authorities when exercising the powers of compulsory purchase on behalf of the Government?

This amendment, by making the conduct of compulsory sequestration of land subject to an agreed code of practice, would provide a check on the current abuses and the practical problems that I have outlined. As noble Lords will know, I am always concerned not just about our making laws that make us feel happy but with enforcement, and it will therefore come as no surprise that part two of the amendment addresses this squarely.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply to my two questions, and I ask the Government to accept this simple but urgently needed and positive amendment, particularly before handing out additional compulsory purchase powers to Natural England. Finally, I should mention that this is very likely to come back on Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, before I introduce my amendment in this group, I say that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has raised some very challenging aspects of compulsory purchase, particularly that of late payment. I will wait for the Minister to respond to that. There is no purpose in having this balancing act, which the noble Lord explained, between individuals and the state if the state does not play fairly by the rules.

Amendment 219 in my name and cosigned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is on the face of it quite radical. In fact, however, all it would do is put pressure on housebuilders to fulfil the planning permissions they have obtained. Planning consents already have a standard three-year period in which to begin construction. Where development is seen to be more challenging, a longer period of five years is sometimes available. Those time periods are not unreasonable. If a housebuilder is seeking to develop a plot of land, they have three years in which to implement or at least to start construction.

Members on all sides know that there is a desperate need for more housing. All political parties have made the case for more housing, in different numbers per annum, but this is not about the numbers game; it is the building of them that is important. The ONS has estimated that there are already 1.2 million outstanding permissions for housing units, as yet unbuilt. I will not use the term “land banking” because there are plenty of arguments out there, and investigations have been made by public lobby groups to point out that land banking is too broad a term for what is going on. Obviously, the reasons are quite varied. Some depend on national and local economic outlooks; nevertheless, 1.2 million units have not been built when we need new homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their comments on and support for my amendment.

I am also very grateful to the Minister for her thoughts. However, given that the amendment’s intention is to assist the Bill’s effectiveness, I had hoped for a rather more supportive approach. The Minister’s reference to a “period of uncertainty” for those affected was an understatement. The reality of the behaviours of agents acting for authorities with the power of compulsory purchase behind them is a good deal more combative than that. Existing standards are simply not adequate and not sufficiently enforced. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I anticipate returning with it on Report.

Amendment 217 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have had a number of conversations with developers over the course of the past month or two. Their universal conclusion is that Part 3 makes it much harder to build houses. It adds huge levels of risk and uncertainty. It tears up the arrangements that they were half way through making—in order to get things done and deal with the environmental impact of housebuilding—and substitutes them with a regime where they just will not know what is happening. It will be really difficult to make commitments because so much could change if an EDP is imposed and because of the timescale of imposing an EDP. What will the consequence of an EDP be? It will make the whole business anti-business.

I really hope that the Government will take the chance of a change in the Secretary of State to look at this aspect of the Bill and say, “Even if it’s a good idea, we need to take it slowly and carefully, and we need to make sure that people can rely on it”, because, if you are setting out to build houses on any scale, you are taking a long-term decision. You need to know how the landscape will be for years in advance.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has kindly organised meetings with Natural England. I have been to two of them, in fact; I was late to one but, for the first one, I was there almost the entire time. One rather excited official from Natural England described what is going to happen as the most exciting thing that had happened in his career. I am not surprised—I mean, all its Christmases are coming at once. It is getting to have a role at the heart of planning and development; to design schemes across the country; and to run the authoritative model to determine where, how and when EDPs will be implemented. I have noticed several references tonight to the Soviet Union, an area with which I have worked extensively. I had exactly the same thought when I read this Bill. This is real Gosplan in action. The idea of some apparatchik sitting at his computer in Westminster and saying, “Bang—we will do that over there”, is absolutely what went wrong with the Soviet Union.

A lot of rude words have been said about Natural England tonight, many of which it deserves. My only real encounter with it was when I tried to put a catchment scheme together up the river—noble Lords may remember the days when we had environmental programmes that were still open. I was looking at doing one of those. The Natural England person said to me, “You know, it sounds like a lot of work, and it’s awfully complex. Are you sure you really want to do it?” These are the people who will be designing EDPs across the country and inflicting them on us. In our debate on the next group of amendments, there will be this question: why is it written as though Natural England is the only solution for all time? Why can it not be more general? I will leave that for others to talk about in the next section.

Two things came out of my latter meeting with them. One was that—noble Lords may or may not be aware of this—if you are a developer, you have to do biodiversity net gain, BNG. That is additional to the levy that you are going to be paying. I just think that everybody should be aware of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned, over and above nutrient neutrality, the biodiversity net gain levy, but has he also considered the other levies, which will apply in addition in an astonishing layering effect? There is the GIRAMS, the green infrastructure recreation avoidance and mitigation strategy, and the SANGs, which is special areas of something—there are so many of these different levies, each of which layers over and above. The cumulative effect of all these is so great that what has to give is the affordable housing, the community infrastructure levy and all those other wider improvements. Has he made some sort of consideration of that in his research?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The noble Lord asked me to say something before I sat down. I will now sit down, but he has thoroughly ruined my evening. Thank you.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, please bear with me. I only have 20 minutes. It has been a very long debate and, because of the clause stand parts, I need to go through everything. I will do my best to cover everything off, but anything I do not, I will get back to the noble Lords in writing.

Our vision is for a planning system that delivers for both nature and people. The reforms in the Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious housebuilding targets and fast-tracking the planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. But we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not and will not come at the cost of the environment. It is this ethos that sits at the centre of how we have designed the nature restoration fund.

The new system is not simply about streamlining how environmental obligations are discharged but about using funds more effectively to secure better outcomes for the environment. We know that the status quo has not been working, neither for development nor for nature. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned concerns that have been raised. We recognise the concerns about establishing an alternative approach. We have worked closely with stakeholders and have taken their views on board, which has culminated in the package of government amendments laid in Committee that noble Lords have mentioned. I would like to particularly thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for recognising the improvements that they have brought to the Bill.

I want to set out how this new approach is going to work. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, produced a very helpful diagram at the recent drop-in session on the Bill. We are working on that to make it fully accurate and we will share further information in a letter that will help noble Lords to better understand our new approach and provide reassurance on what we are trying to achieve. I hope that that will clarify a number of questions that have been asked today, including around the mitigation hierarchy and other concerns that were raised regarding developers by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I apologise that they have not been ready for today’s session, but hopefully we will have them ahead of Wednesday.

It is important to highlight that the NRF establishes an alternative mechanism to discharge existing environmental obligations. It does not create any new obligations or repeal any existing environmental obligations. Where an EDP is put in place, it will remain open to developers either to use the EDP or to discharge the relevant environmental obligation under the existing system. This is baked into the design of EDPs, which will set out the capacity of development they can support but can scale the delivery of conservation measures according to the amount of development that comes forward.

This highlights another important feature of this new model in that Natural England and, ultimately, the Secretary of State would not prepare an EDP where it was not necessary to support development and the environment. These are targeted tools that will be used only where there is both a clear need from development and an ecological case that the EDP could materially outweigh the negative impact of development.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, raised concerns about the role of Natural England. I am pleased that the noble Earl now has a meeting arranged but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, the next debate will be an opportunity to get into more depth around Natural England’s role.

I want to clarify that, before the EDP comes to the Secretary of State, it will be subject to proper scrutiny through public consultation. Only then would the Secretary of State consider whether the EDP could be made in line with the overall improvement test. This consultation is vital, because it is the stage when people can test the approach being proposed, in terms of the design and efficacy of the conservation measures. This is also where Natural England will set out whether it is proposing to include planning conditions to drive action on the part of developers, as part of the EDP. In the limited circumstances where conservation measures benefit a site different from the one impacted by development, the EDP will set out the ecological justification for these measures and how they are more beneficial to the environmental feature in question than on-site measures.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Would the Minister clarify? I will be very brief. The EDP is designed on the basis of offsetting some environmental damage, but at what point do the developers choose whether or not to pay the levy into it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

This is what we are trying to do with the diagram and the note; they will clarify all that.

If, after the consultation and consideration of the overall improvement test, an EDP is made, developers would be able to make a payment into the EDP which would, subject to any conditions, discharge the relevant environmental obligation. The responsibility for delivering conservation measures and the overall improvement would then move to Natural England, which would use the money received through the nature restoration levy to secure the necessary conservation measures. These would then be supported by a thorough regime of monitoring and reporting to ensure that the outcomes are delivered, with the government amendments clarifying the actions that must be taken were conservation measures not to perform as expected. Once in place, the EDPs will deliver a streamlined approach for developers while improving the conservation status of the environmental feature.

This is part of Clause 53, so I will address the first amendment in this group, because it is relevant to this clause. Amendment 227H, from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would change the name “environmental development plan” to “environmental harm mitigation plan”. I think that we have different ambitions for the nature restoration fund. We are clear, both in our aims and through the legislation, that EDPs will go beyond simply mitigating harm and will more materially outweigh the negative impact of a development. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw that amendment.

Clause 54 sets out the requirements for what an EDP must include in relation to area, type of development, volumes of development and duration of the EDP, providing clarity on the scope and setting clear expectations for Natural England on what needs to be included when preparing an EDP.

Clause 55 introduces the concept of conservation measures, which are the measures to be funded by an EDP. It also introduces the concept of the environmental feature, which is a protected feature of a protected site or species that is likely to be impacted by a development that the conservation measures seek to address. It establishes the framework of the rules.

While we are on Clause 55, Amendments 302 and 303, tabled by the noble Lord, Roborough, seek to limit the disapplication of the habitats regulations to the specific nature and specific impacts identified in the EDP. This is important and I am pleased to be able to provide clarity and assurance on this point. As drafted, Clause 55(1) defines an environmental impact as

“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”,

as identified by the EDP. This means that the disapplication in Schedule 4 already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. Of course, there could be circumstances where it may have multiple environmental impacts and, if only one of those was addressed by the EDP, the remaining environmental impacts would still need to be assessed through the existing system.

Clause 56 requires Natural England to produce charging schedules, which is critical as that will establish the rates that developers need to pay to rely on the EDP. The clause makes it clear that different rates can apply for different kinds of development covered by the EDP. Clause 57 sets up further detail around the information that Natural England has to include in an EDP; for example, an underlying environmental condition. That is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each environmental feature, so that we can set a baseline for improvements and how they are measured.

Looking at the procedures, Clause 58 sets out the requirements that Natural England must meet. The Government have tabled an amendment to replace Clause 58 with Clause 87A, which extends and broadens the duties it contains to other functions of Natural England and the Secretary of State in relation to this part. I will speak to this amendment in due course but, in the light of that, the Government are not seeking to support the inclusion of the current Clause 58.

In introducing the restoration fund, we have been clear that this new approach will be expert-led and ecologically sound. Clause 59 is therefore central. It secures the effective scrutiny and has a consultation process to lead to better EDPs informed by relevant experts and local communities, but also provides the Secretary of State with the assurance that he needs to approve an EDP. The nature restoration fund is, as I said, not just about streamlining but about using funds more effectively, which is why Clause 60 requires that the Secretary of State may approve an EDP only once satisfied that it passes the overall improvement test. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the importance of the overall improvement test. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that it will be delivered by the end date of the EDP. EDPs are therefore focused on the timely delivery of environmental outcomes.

I move on to the reporting, amendment, revocation and challenge requirements. Once an EDP is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures and progress made. It is vital that key information, such as performance of conservation measures and the remaining development capacity, are made available. It is important to have transparency so that proactive steps can be taken if an EDP is underperforming. It also allows the Secretary of State to amend an EDP if required.

Clause 62 has the reporting requirements and also looks at how the levy is being set and the transparency around that, so that developers, the local community and environmental groups can continue to engage during the EDP’s lifespan. Clause 63 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend EDPs in specific circumstances where it is necessary to do so; for example, to reflect new environmental information or to accommodate additional development. Crucially, the Secretary of State is bound by the same overall improvement test as when making an EDP.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who talked about the process for revoking; the circumstances on how that would be used are established in Clause 64. Of course, this is the option of last resort, and the Bill includes various safeguards to ensure that we do not reach this point, including the ability to amend and to deploy back-up conservation measures if monitoring indicates underperformance. Development that has relied on the EDP prior to revocation is not affected by the decision to revoke. The Secretary of State must then consider appropriate actions to ensure that the negative effect of development on environmental features where a developer has already committed to pay the levy before revocation are suitably addressed. Obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, so we recognise that it is important to provide a route to challenge EDPs. The route of challenge is in Clause 65 and enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published.

I turn to how the nature restoration levy operates. Clause 66 sets out the framework. If a request is accepted by Natural England, the developer is then committed to making the relevant payment, which will be set out in the charging schedule, which will be published. Once the developer has committed to paying the levy, the environmental obligations are altered in line with the EDP. Ensuring that Natural England can secure the funds to deliver the conservation measures through the nature restoration levy is central to this approach and provides certainty. The positive outcomes for nature that the EDP will deliver will be realised only if the developer chooses to make them. Therefore, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the cost of the levy does not make development unviable. The regulations will be able to deal with a range of technical matters relating to the ability to pay, such as cancellation or withdrawal of such liability, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Parminter, and to offer support for Amendment 115, to which I attach my name, and for the general intention of Amendments 116 and 117. In the interests of time, I will restrict myself to Amendment 115.

I do not often take your Lordships’ House back to my Australian origins, but as this amendment has come up, I really have to. I am going back about 35 years to a place called Quirindi in north-west New South Wales. Somewhere out on the internet there is a photo of me sitting on a horse in a field, or paddock as we would say, that is dead flat and dead dry, without a blade of grass on it—that is Quirindi.

As an agricultural science student, I remember the farmer explaining how to live there. He took me out the back to the water tank, which was a very large tank that caught the water off the farmhouse roof. There was no town water in Australian farming, so that entire operation and household depended on the water that they caught off the roof. I still remember the farmer rapping on the side of the tin tank and saying, “That’s where the water is; we’re in trouble”.

Noble Lords might think, “Oh, that’s Australia—that’s far away; that’s a very distant place”. Quirindi has an annual average rainfall of 684 millimetres a year. There are parts of south-east England that have an annual rainfall of 700 millimetres a year, which is essentially the same amount. There is also the impact of the climate emergency and the fact that we are seeing more weather extremes and more drying out.

There is something Britain can learn from the Australian practices that have been enforced over history and that can be imported here for a win-win benefit. No one loses from the proposal in Amendment 115. As I think has already been mentioned, we in the UK use about 150 litres of water a day per capita. That compares with France, which uses 128; Germany, which uses 122; and Spain, which uses 120. This is expensively treated drinking water that we are using for all kinds of practices that we do not need to use drinking water for.

I am going to quote Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust:

“We also need to finally implement the use of rainwater rather than drinking water where we can, such as car washing, gardening, washing pets, filling paddling pools, and flushing the loo. Other water-stressed countries have used this approach for decades and we need to join that party.”


I really stress the “party” element. I do not think we have mentioned the issue of flooding yet. Many of us have been speaking about the need for land management to slow the flow. What could be a better way to slow the flow than to catch that water so that it is not flooding out into our drains, water treatment plants, rivers and seas and so that we can have it available for use?

Often, when we talk about water use, there is a lot of finger-waving: “People should switch the tap off when they’re brushing their teeth and people should have shorter showers”. But what we really need is a system change that makes doing the right thing the easiest, cheapest, simplest and most natural thing to do. That is exactly what this proposal is putting forward. So this is a win-win all round: for householders, cutting their bills; for preventing flooding; for protecting the environment; and for saving energy—we do not think about this much, but moving water around and treating water uses a great deal of energy. I looked up the stats, and we do not seem to have any good stats in the UK, but globally, the United Nations says that 8% of energy use goes towards treating and moving water. That is such a waste when you have water falling on your roof that you can use right there in place. Pumping it out to a reservoir, treating it and pumping it back in—all that uses energy. This is a common-sense measure; why on earth not?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that many good things come from Australia, and she is one of them. The tapping on the tank she describes is exactly what I have been doing in Leicestershire in recent weeks. I have some experience of water harvesting, both from domestic roofs and from commercial buildings, and actually it is not very difficult, because roofs are all designed to channel water into pipes, and it is simply a matter of intercepting that water and using it.

I do have a couple of practical concerns. The first is that, as anybody who has done this will know, even a modest rain shower will give you an awful lot of water. As a result, any housing development or business premises is going to find itself with a very large need for water storage somewhere on that site, either underground or above ground. My second concern is how that water is recycled. I am not squeamish about drinking or using non-mains water. I raised a family on water drawn from an underground stream, not on the mains at all. But water left standing in a tank will grow bad and grow algae very quickly. If that is the solution, we need to find out how to treat it.

Furthermore, there is a real issue that I run into: the water companies and Ofwat will not even contemplate the danger of mingling water collected by a third party with mains water—in a header tank, in your pipes or anywhere else—because they are liable for the quality of that water. So, if you mingle it with rainwater, they will not allow you to draw mains water. The golden thread here is to find a system where rainwater is the norm and the mains is the back-up, but we are a long way from that at the moment and will be until the regulatory and practical storage issues are solved. To be clear, I thoroughly support this amendment—the spirit of it—but the practicalities of it need to be worked out effectively into the design of water systems supplying domestic and commercial premises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I ask the noble Earl, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, perhaps rhetorically, whether they are aware of the One Million Cisterns project in Brazil, which aimed to deliver what it said on the tin and indeed has done so and was expanded subsequently. This is in the semi-arid area of Brazil, home to 18 million people. Brazil, of course, has a lot less infrastructure and is much economically poorer than the UK, yet it has been able to deliver a programme that has won United Nations awards and had all sorts of impacts. I hope the noble Lords will acknowledge that since other countries have achieved this, maybe it is not an unreasonable expectation for us to achieve it too.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I should just quickly say that we can learn a lot from Brazil as well as Australia. I am in favour of the amendment; I would just add that I did not realise that water butts were a declarable interest, and if they are, I had better declare that I too have some.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, the greatest example of the gathering of rainwater that we can learn from is in Bermuda. They have stepped roofs made of limestone, so when the water lands on them the possibility of purifying the water is high—the sunlight also works as a purifier. The water then goes through the tunnels into cisterns under each house, and that is how they get their water. It is clean and pure, so if you want to capture more water to be used for drinking, it is not by mixing it with what comes out of the taps, but by recreating the miracle of Bermuda and its water. It is an island, there are no rivers—there is nothing. The only thing they have is rain. When it comes, everybody is very glad, and all their tanks are filled with beautiful water. If you want to capture more rainwater, why not learn from Bermuda?

--- Later in debate ---

I finish with the suggestion that we should really not compete against each other when thinking about this issue on Report. We should think about an amendment that can incorporate all the elements in this group and bring them together—and, if the Government have not already seen the light, let us make sure that the Committee sends them a very strong message incorporating all these elements.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief, as nearly everything has been said very much more eloquently than I would have done in support of Amendment 149. I have scrapped most of what I was going to say.

I just add that we talk about the benefits of being grounded. There are few better ways of achieving that than working with the soil, the weather and the seasons on an allotment. However, that privilege can be enjoyed only if there is an area accessible to cultivate. The allotment movement in the UK is a long-standing tradition and it should not be squeezed out simply to create more spaces to put houses on in a limited area.

I would go a little further than this amendment. The allocation of area should reflect the number of houses and the expected population. Currently, allotments are included in the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement, which is completely different from allotments. There is some overlap, but it is a different requirement. I ask whichever Minister is going to cover this whether they agree that we need some sort of metric within the planning system that says: “x population; y land allocated for allotments”—otherwise we are just in the land of good intentions, and we know where they lead.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will add three completely new points from a health perspective, and one that may I think have been covered.

The first point is that we are going through a major transition in thinking about health and in the way to create health and prevent diseases. People may well be aware that the links between nature and health and activity have been known for years, going back to the Greeks—and one could quote them. The key difference today, which I think has not yet come out yet, is the quality of the evidence that we have about that impact. It is due to researchers, including my noble friend Lady Willis, that we now understand the physiological evidence about the impact—how being in nature actually affects the body, and the biological mechanism behind this. Importantly, as the noble Baroness has shown herself and as she quoted earlier, there is evidence that green space in urban areas is even more important than in rural areas. That is the first really significant point—that the quality of evidence is now there.

The second point is that the health system is starting to act on that quality of evidence. If I say that the evidence for this is now as good as for many medicines, based on the same sort of considerations and published in the same sort of journals, there is no reason why we should not be thinking, as many people are, about how we go beyond pills. I need just to state a very simple point —that last year alone 8 million people were prescribed anti-depressants. That is an astonishing number, and this is one area where one might well think that being in nature and the activities involved would have an impact.

The third area I want to point to is government policy. It is very clear, is it not, that the new NHS plan, with its transitions from hospital to community and treatment to prevention, describes that it needs to create the sort of healthy environments that this amendment and others in this group envisage. I should have said at the beginning that I have put my name to Amendment 206 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which I am particularly speaking to. There are some very strong health considerations here that are different from those that have been around before. There is policy, there is evidence and there is action actually starting to happen within our health systems. It seems to me that, if this Government have the ambition to leave the country in a better place than they found it—beyond simply numbers of housing units—then they need to catch this tide and make sure that there is implementation and that we are creating healthy homes and neighbourhoods.

I shall add one final point, which has already been mentioned, about the importance of allotments and of growing—the importance not just of being engaged with nature and physical activity but of being engaged in social networks and in the activity that surrounds that. These things come together to create healthy neighbourhoods and at the heart of it are the sorts of measures that have been set forward in all these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I just take a moment to thank my noble friend Lord Khan for all the work he did while he was a Minister in our department. I am afraid that I will not step on the toes of the great Lancashire-Yorkshire debate, but it was true to say that my noble friend’s unfailing good humour and his ability to convene and effect collaboration, even across barriers of faith and religion that are deeply historic in nature, gave him what I think bordered on a superpower, which was great. He did so much work on the faith and communities aspect of our department’s work, as well as on elections. I especially commend his work during the passage of the Holocaust Memorial Act, which was very difficult to navigate. He dealt exceptionally well with the work on that Act. I hope that he will continue to use the networks he has built and developed, because, in a time when there are forces trying to divide us—we see that every day—we need more Lord Khans to bring us all together. I pay tribute to the work he did in that respect. I will of course continue to work with him, but he is a loss to our department.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Wilson—very briefly, because I know he will hate me doing it—for stepping in at very short notice to support me with some of the work on the Bill.

I want to thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments relating to the provision of green and blue spaces. Of course, as we drive forward—your Lordships will have heard my new Secretary of State urging us to “build, baby, build”—it is important that we maintain the aspects that have been raised in a very interesting and important discussion this afternoon.

There is a growing body of evidence illustrating the crucial role that green space plays in supporting healthy and inclusive communities, and we recognise the importance of providing these alongside new homes. I want to pay tribute to the Members of this House who have contributed to the evidence base in this regard, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who was also kind enough to give me a copy of her book, and very thorough and insightful it is too. I am very grateful to all Members of this House who contribute to this evidence base. That is why existing policy and provisions already in the Bill are intended to achieve just that.

I turn first to Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who I know has a passion for protecting green spaces and ensuring that local people can use their voices to shape development in their own areas. National planning policy plays a powerful role in the planning process, as it must be taken into account both in the plan-making process and in determining individual applications.

The National Planning Policy Framework—I am sure we will talk about this lots during the Bill—requires local plans to make sufficient provision for green infrastructure and to be based on up-to-date assessments of the need for open space; it is not an optional extra or just an encouragement to do it. The designation of land as local green space also allows communities to identify and protect green areas of particular importance to them.

We will of course have national development management policies coming forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked me whether they would vary between urban and rural sites in terms of provision and what they specify about provision; I will take that back because it is a key point. We expect in due course—that phrase that we all love so well—to have further revisions to the NPPF. Additionally, new major housing developments on land released from the green belt must be accompanied by accessible green spaces. The green infrastructure framework, published by Natural England, supports local planners, developers and communities to plan for high-quality and multifunctional green spaces.

These policy provisions provide a strong basis for securing green spaces alongside new developments. However, they also allow local planning authorities to take pragmatic approaches where necessary, which rigid legal requirements would prevent. Local planning authorities can use planning obligations and conditions to secure the long-term stewardship of green spaces, and we have heard a bit about that this afternoon. As local government funding was cut, that was a disincentive to local authorities to provide green spaces, but we continue to work with them to urge securing that through planning obligations and conditions so that it covers the long-term maintenance of these spaces as well as their initial provision. We recognise that there are too many examples of poor maintenance or of residents left facing excessive charges. We will consult this year on arrangements for maintaining communal facilities as part of ending the injustice of the fleecehold estates that we unfortunately have so many examples of around the country.

On Amendments 138, 138B and 149, I acknowledge the intent to ensure that green spaces, green and blue infrastructure, community gardens and allotments, and even ducks—I greatly appreciated that point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—are all given consideration at strategic level. The National Planning Policy Framework, which new spatial development strategies are required to have regard to, sets out that development plans should aim to achieve healthy places which promote social interaction and healthy lives: for example, through the provision of green infrastructure. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned social interaction around allotments. Having been a councillor for many years, I can say that sometimes that social interaction on allotments is not quite as positive as we might want it to be, but I absolutely take his point.

Furthermore, where strategic planning authorities consider such spaces to be of strategic importance to the area, they are already able to set policies which reflect this. New Section 12D(4)(c) states that a spatial development strategy can specify or describe infrastructure relating to

“promoting or improving the … social or environmental well-being of that area”,

which we expect could include community gardens, allotments and green spaces. Equally, policies in relation to allotments and community garden land could be included within the terms of new Section 12D(1), which covers policies in relation to the development and use of land.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, we need to keep the contents of spatial development strategies high-level to allow for local planning authorities to set more detailed policies and site allocations through their local plans. The way that we are shaping the planning system, as I mentioned in previous sessions on the Bill, will, I hope, allow local councillors to spend more time thinking about local plans. We believe that policies to secure open space in specific developments are better set at local level, where the needs and opportunities in each area can be considered.

I turn to Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. These amendments would place duties on development corporations in respect of the provision and maintenance of green and blue infrastructure. I thank the noble Baronesses for acknowledging the important role that development corporations have in the delivery of housing and other infrastructure, including those green and blue provisions. As a lifetime resident of Britain’s first new town, built under a development corporation, I know that what always surprises people about my town is how green it is. They think it will be an urban jungle; it certainly is not that. In terms of blue infrastructure, the wonderful facility we have of 120 acres of parkland, including four lakes, in the middle of the town is, without a doubt, the most popular asset our town has. I really take on board that people truly value these spaces.

Development corporations are crucial to growing the economy and delivering much-needed housing. Large-scale development and regeneration projects must go hand in hand with green and blue infrastructure. We do not want to see just houses, we want to see thriving communities, and we know just how many benefits those provisions can bring to individuals’ mental and physical well-being, social interactions and, importantly, the climate and wildlife. That is why it is crucial that development corporations take forward the provision and stewardship of green and blue space.

It is worth highlighting that development corporations are already subject to the same provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework that underpin requirements to plan for and provide open space elsewhere. Where development corporations take on local authority planning powers, their planning policies and decisions need to be informed by the National Planning Policy Framework. Although some development corporations do not take on those powers, delivery of the property projects co-ordinated by those development corporations will also ultimately be subject to the provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework.

I have already set out the role and benefits of the framework in relation to green infrastructure, but it is also worth underlining its role in relation to plan making. The framework specifies that plans should set an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places, making sufficient provision for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including green infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about evidence, and he makes a key and important point there, because fundamental to local plan production and to the future strategic plan production will be that evidence base—it really is critical. Any local councillor who has sat through a public inquiry on their local plan will know that that is inspected in great detail by the Planning Inspectorate, and the evidence base is absolutely key.

The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into consideration when preparing the development plan. We have seen this work very well in practice. For example, in Ebbsfleet, the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has a strong track record of providing almost 15 hectares of parks in recent years, and this year is aiming to provide around 10 hectares of new parks and open spaces. I think this kind of model is what we are looking for with development corporations. I therefore believe that up-to-date local plan coverage will ensure that green space, such as community gardens, play areas and allotments, is planned for the right level and reflects local need.

I am not entirely convinced that it would help if the freedoms that local authorities currently have to shape the green, blue and brown space in the way that best suits their communities were removed. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about empowering communities, while the direction of travel of the amendments could be that we impose conditions on them from national government. I am not sure that that is entirely helpful. I am sure that this dialogue will continue as we go through the Bill, and I am happy to have conversations—some Members have asked for meetings and I am happy to have those conversations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, for his very practical suggestion of talking to Treasury colleagues about the Green Book supplementary guidance on well-being. I hope that the Treasury has a focus on well-being, because if it does not, we are all in trouble. I will take that back to the Treasury.

For all those reasons, I kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I accept completely the relevance of local input and that we must not tie people’s hands. But given that the supply of allotments is far less than the demand for it, does the Minister agree with me that there needs to be a slightly firmer approach —I suggested a metric, perhaps that is too aggressive, but at least some sort of norms in planning policy as to the quantity of allotment area to be given for a given amount of population? Without that, I am worried that this is going to be just like affordable housing, which is in the next group, which, as soon as planning permission is given, is haggled down to the minimum that the developer can get away with. I hope that we can be a bit firmer on this; otherwise, we are back to good intentions again.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not a planner, but I do have the joy of owning a small property in Cornwall, which is part-listed. I took a lot of advice when I wanted a new kitchen at the back of the building on whether I needed listed building consent. The answer was, “If it’s in Cornwall, yes, but if it’s in London, no”. There are many differences between areas of this country, which we have not talked about this morning but will come into the assessment of how the criteria are done.

In Cornwall, they are trying to keep the villages and towns looking good and beautiful, which is fine. However, you then hear comments from people like a friend of mine who wants to put a summer house at the far end of the garden, away from the listed house, and must get listed building consent. Everybody is moaning about that and the cost. On the other hand, if you do not have some criteria like that, you will have a mess. On Amendment 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, it is a great idea to say that these charges should be waived, but an awful lot more needs to go into it. Frankly, the amount of money needed to pay for listed building consent for the average small house is not that great. Therefore, I do not support Amendment 97. I hope that we can accept that there will be pros and cons but that the need to have listed building consent in a reasonable way overturns everything.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 95. Nobody likes to see fees going up, and I totally support the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her concern about calculation and control. I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her very well-reasoned cry for support for the SME builders.

I want to put my weight behind Amendment 95, because quite often in this House I have said how much we like to make legislation and how little we then resource the enforcement of it. This Bill seems specifically to exclude money for enforcement. I cannot let it pass without asking the Minister to explain why and to lend my support to Amendment 95.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I agree that enforcement of legislation is almost as important as legislation itself.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in her quest for lower fees for SMEs, even if that means that other fees must be a trifle higher. We worked on the problems facing SME builders and the dire decline in their market share when we sat together on the Built Environment Committee. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Parkinson on that subject. It is clear from the forensic contribution of my noble friend Lord Banner that the appeal system would also be a nightmare for SMEs.

In her summing up, I very much hope that the Minister will advise on what the Government are doing to help SMEs more broadly, and whether it is enough, and for those building houses on their own—which my sister did successfully in Vermont, USA, but which is extremely rare in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, it is nice to see amity break out across the Committee after the previous group. I imagine a digital twin of the House of Lords would get to Amendment 135 by 7 pm.

Digital twins offer such an ability for local councils and their officers and members, and members of the public, to really get to grips with a plan. Otherwise, you are presented with something static that is really hard to change. It is just, “Shall we push it through or shall we retreat?” With a digital twin you can adjust, look at different ways of doing it and absorb comments as they come through, at a really low cost, and arrive at a much more evolved, much better, solution at the end of it.

I urge the Government, given that digital twins are part of the industrial strategy, to use this as an example to develop the Government’s role as a partner/customer, as a way of helping new small businesses and technologies cut their teeth and get a worthwhile first contract or two out of the way, and not to stand back but be part of the development of a strong new British industry. There is an opportunity here to do that, particularly with the Government’s new town programme. I really hope they take it.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I endorse completely the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and her supporters. She introduced it engagingly and comprehensively. I have therefore scribbled out most of what I was going to say. She has done the Committee a double service in that respect.

A common difficulty for those citizens who wish to examine or question a development proposal is the scarcity of information, expertise and resources they have, often when up against a large professional development company. Planning authorities have the same problem, and the risk of very expensive and protracted discussions and inquiries to get to grips with the proposed project. Some applications that I have seen seem almost designed to overcome planning authorities and public resistance through the sheer volume and number of boxes of paper that arrive, within which people have to try to find where the bodies are buried.

If such projects were obliged to produce a digital twin model, as the amendment proposes, not only would we have a more equitable process but it would also save a great deal of time, resources and money. I could say a great deal more, but I will not because we all dread the phrase, “My Lords, a lot of good points have been made” and I shall not repeat it. I genuinely shall not. I support these amendments, and I will now sit down.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I support this amendment and thank other Lords for their support. One thing the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said is that if we had had a digital twin model earlier, the bat tunnel we talked about would probably never have been necessary in HS2.

Clearly, there are issues around this on data privacy, keeping information up to date, legacy systems and so forth. But one of the positives is that once you have a model, you do not just discard it once the project has finished; you continue using it into the future and update it. It allows you all the benefits into the future.

We on these Benches are very interested to hear where the Government are in the development of this area, which I certainly hope is an area where the UK, with its IT prowess, will move ahead of our competitors and use it for the kinds of not very successful infrastructure projects that we have had in recent years.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, like many Members in the Committee, when I read the list in my noble friend’s Amendment 77 I was absolutely incredulous that we are in the position where planning permissions still have to be given for that scale of change to our electricity distribution system. It is incredible. I hope that whichever Minister is answering on this group will be able to give us concrete guarantees that action will be taken in this area, whether through accepting this amendment or through secondary legislation. We need to get on with this and with the Government’s own programme.

I very much welcome the boldness of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which is perhaps unusual coming from those Benches, and the tenor of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. One thing that strikes me, and she mentioned it, is that a lot of reservoirs, certainly in my part of the world, the south-west, are used as recreational facilities, and obviously we would not want to squeeze that out. The other thing that occurs to me, particularly this year, is that floating solar on reservoirs is very likely to become non-floating fixed solar panels, given the rate of rainfall that we have been having, or not having, over some of these summers.

I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to these very positive suggestions for how we can move renewable energy forward in this country.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, with the solar energy that is reaching me at the moment, it is actually quite hard to see whether there is anybody out there, but I will take it for granted that there is and that they are all listening with rapt attention.

I apologise that I was unable to participate in earlier debates on the Bill, but I have been following it closely. I should declare that my family farm has some of what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to as “hideous”—or was it “horrendous”?—pylons and poles coming across it. My grandfather actually welcomed these as signs of the inevitable march of progress, but, even then, and certainly now, not everybody is quite as enthusiastic as he was.

While I see and support the logic of Amendment 77, it makes no provision overtly for wayleaves or compensation for those whose homes and businesses are affected by any additional poles et cetera. I hope that any amendment along these lines would accommodate such arrangements, as is the case with current power lines. Will the Minister, or perhaps the noble Earl himself, confirm that that is the intention?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, to pick up the point of the noble Lord, I remember my uncle getting pylons next to his house and how the compensation saved the day for his small business.

My own view is that it is good to have permitted development rights for minor changes, particularly if energy providers are calling for them. It makes sense to use this Bill to allow permitted development. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that it was hugely important, and I think it is hugely important to speed things up. As we have already heard, it is a surprise that some of these things require planning permission, and there is a lot of potluck as to whether you can get planning permission quickly in any particular area.

I just believe that we need to get things moving so I am not sure why the changes need to be in a regulation, as proposed in Amendment 77 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Can the Government not work out what can be easily excluded from planning control and put it in the Bill? That is how we used to do things in the Bills I remember presiding over in the 20th century when I was a civil servant. Is there anything that we can do to get rid of these things, rather than wait for further regulations and consultations, if it is straightforward?

I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey that we should be careful not to allow multiple wind turbines through a back door. Clearly, the detail of this needs to be looked at; it has to be genuinely smallish things. I am less sure about permitted development rights for floating solar simply because I know so little about it; if we were to proceed with that, it should be in regulations. I am always asking the Minister how we can speed this process up. Permitted development rights here, and perhaps elsewhere in the Bill, can play a part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in group three are all on electricity distribution and cabling. I apologise that there is quite a lot of crossover between my amendment in this group and those in the other group; in retrospect, it might have been better to have kept them together. A lot of the overarching general points that I made in the last group apply to this group. I am introducing a series of practical measures that I would like the Government to take forward to help them achieve their stated aim, which I share, of getting to clean power.

My Amendment 78 is about land access rights. It would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land. Land access rights need to extend to renewable energy operators as well, and that is my mistake; the drafting of my amendment was not as clear as it should have been. If the Minister, in responding to my speech, could also include the issue of renewable energy operators’ ability to access land in building renewable energy facilities, that would be greatly appreciated.

This is about using the opportunities the Bill provides. This measure, which the district network operators and industry bodies are calling for, is not in the Bill, which is why I have brought it forward. These are small, practical steps—like the British Cycling example I gave earlier—which, if implemented, would help to get done the things we all agree on.

If we do not address these issues, we will have delays, increased costs and issues in getting towards clean power. At present, electricity licence holders have fewer statutory rights when it comes to acquiring and accessing land compared with other utilities such as gas, water and telecommunications. I am not aware that the Government have done any consultation on this, but if the Minister could let me know when he responds whether consultations are ongoing, that would be greatly appreciated. We are looking to resolve the lack of parity, remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that we can get this stuff done.

The amendment would ensure that electricity distribution network operators are given carefully defined powers to acquire rights over land for overhead lines and cables, to purchase land for new substations, to enter land for the maintenance of existing equipment and to carry out vegetation management critical to the safety and reliability of the system. These powers will not be unlimited; they will be subject to both proper consultation and fair compensation for the landowners concerned, but they will mean that we can proceed with essential infrastructure works in a timely, straightforward and cost-effective way, in line with other utilities.

I welcome the fact that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has launched a consultation on land rights, published last month. However, it falls short of what is required to make clean power 2030 a reality. It does not extend to renewable electricity generators themselves, despite their central role in the energy transition. Without legislative reform in this Bill, we risk kicking the issue down the road.

As I said, the amendment enjoys the backing of the sector, which has been lobbying Members of this House—and, no doubt, the Government, including the Minister—on it. It has long been called for by the Energy Networks Association. These are the people operating on the front line, investing in green power and taking the risks. They are the people with the contracts to deliver this stuff for the Government, so it is important that the Government do what they reasonably can to help these companies succeed, so that we can share that joint ambition and achieve things together.

To conclude, my intention is to help the Government; I share their intention to hit our clean power targets. I want to work with the Minister; I am happy to look at amending my amendment and to speak to him between now and Report. The intention is for further consultation with the industry to look at these things and try to find some practical solutions to these relatively easily surmountable issues. I hope that is possible. I will circle back to the other amendments in this group after they have been introduced. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to ask for a point of clarity from the noble Earl, of which I gave him due warning earlier today. As neither he nor the Minister picked up my question in the debate on Amendment 77, I hope that I will be luckier in this debate on Amendment 78.

Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 78 refers to

“the acquisition of rights over land”

by network operators. Will the noble Earl confirm that he does not have in mind compulsory purchase powers? We will hear a lot about them later in the Bill—in fact, they probably should have had a Bill on their own, but we are where we are. Will he just confirm that? Giving operators compulsory purchase powers, in effect, has been a disaster in the radio mast arena. I would not want to see it happen again here.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

That is not my intention. I apologise for not being able to respond to the noble Lord’s email this morning. It is not my intention to give compulsory purchase powers. This is wayleaves, not compulsory purchase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 79A in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire about the presumption in favour of burying cables as the default method. He spoke of insanity, but I did not think I was going mad—I believed and agreed with every word he said. Not only is burying cables less visually intrusive but, storms notwithstanding, as we have seen in the Ukrainian conflict, surface infrastructure is more vulnerable to malign and military disruption. I have not seen any calculation anywhere that takes that national security angle into account. That is an omission that should be corrected, and would be if my noble friend’s amendment is accepted.

I do not stand entirely shoulder to shoulder with those who accept the construction of pylons in any circumstance but I am not the Luddite who is in denial about the difficulties of strengthening and hardening the grid. We all need to be realistic about what it takes for the lights to come on when you flick that switch, with fluctuating renewables on the one hand and new demands from electrical vehicles on the other. But that should not give National Grid a right to be judge and jury in its own court and carte blanche to ride roughshod.

My interest in the amendment has been piqued because I have experienced at first hand the process undertaken by National Grid when it seeks to promote a new pylon power line, in this case from Norwich to Tilbury to transport electricity from the wind farms off the Norfolk coast down to the smoke. At that time, I was leader of the South Norfolk Council, an area to be bisected across its entire height by new HV power lines. What I experienced was institutional arrogance from National Grid and its agents. It thought that a single consultation event, offered at short notice on an afternoon in a remote village hall for an area of 400 square miles, was sufficient. It had a boneheaded refusal to accept that burying was even an option—even just in part across the picturesque Waveney Valley or the Roydon Fen county wildlife reserve.

National Grid exhibited a steadfast refusal to demonstrate or explain why the option of providing a future-proof offshore ring main, connecting the existing infrastructure that used to serve the redundant Bradwell nuclear power station, was even a possibility. The suggestion that offshore was impractical was wholly disproven by the offshore link that is currently proposed from Sizewell to the Richborough marshes—I am stood next to the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and I expect him to intervene in a moment to say how wonderful that part of the world is and how it should not be despoiled.

National Grid had unevidenced assertions relating to the unaffordability of burying lines, as opposed to having them overhead, without either explaining or quantifying the quantum of those extra costs for the whole line or just per kilometre. There was a failure to consider parallel running to the existing pylon line to minimize visual impact, with the result that the wonderful and historic market town of Diss is now proposed to be fenced in on all four sides by huge steel pylons to an unacceptable degree. This lack of understanding, further, that the mooted community compensation schemes for overhead lines, but not for buried cables, might undermine the business case for pylons now turns out to be the case because it stands as part of Clause 26 of the Bill. There were other questions to answer, which I will not detain the Committee with.

Now, of course, there may have been good reasons why National Grid might be right on all the points I mentioned, though I struggle to see how, but with friends like these, who needs enemies? National Grid has gone out of its way to pick fights rather than bringing people together. As a council leader, I met officials from National Grid and put the points privately, to try to have a neutral forum where it could make an improved case for the proposals and build consensus. That olive branch was spurned, so it is little wonder that there is now widespread resistance to new pylon routes. Opposition has been carelessly and recklessly whipped up by a ham-fisted approach from the people who need all the friends they can get.

I like this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire because it would set the default expectation that new lines will be buried. Of course, that does not mean that they must be buried, but for the operator to go above ground as the preferred option, he will need to make the evidential case and have it scrutinised, and to build friendships and not enemies. That is a much better approach and balance of power, literally, between the parties than the regrettable and aggravating behaviours that we have seen thus far, where the lazy overhead option is chosen and everybody else be damned.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I just underline that the missing ingredient in this debate is actual numbers on the costs. There is a lot of theoretical toing and froing this afternoon but what we really need in this discussion is a hard number cost for, say, 100 metres of buried cable as opposed to, say, the cost of a pylon. I asked a Written Question about a pylon some months ago and got a wonderfully “Yes Minister” Answer: “Of course, all pylons are different and some pylons are more equal than others, but it is all very difficult so I can’t give you an answer”.

I hope that we can do a bit better than that. It would be great to know the cost of, say, 100 metres or 500 metres—whatever is the right metric—of buried cable and pylon with the equivalent cable. Until that answer is before us—I suspect that it will be a lot more expensive—we are not going to lay this debate to rest. I think that everybody, on all sides of this Committee, would like to see the cables buried. The question is at what cost and whether that cost is worth it. Until we have that number, we are just talking theory.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 78 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 79A from my noble friend Lord Swire deal with the critical issue of grid capacity and connectivity, which sits at the heart of the Government’s ambitions to decarbonise the UK’s energy system and deliver the infrastructure necessary to meet their ideological clean power 2030 target.

Amendment 78 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution operators new powers. The distribution and transmission of electricity is intrinsic to the production and utilisation of clean energy. Without access to the grid, energy infrastructure remains little more than an expensive stranded asset.

The case for action is clear. As we know, the great grid upgrade is a vital part of our pathway to net zero, yet, at present, new energy developments such as wind farms and solar parks are experiencing unacceptable delays when it comes to grid connection. Some projects face waiting times of up to 10 years—delays that threaten both investor confidence and the credibility of our decarbonisation goals. That is why the previous Conservative Government took decisive steps in commissioning the Windsor review, which examined the obstacles to timely grid connectivity. We are of course proud to say that all 43 recommendations of the Windsor review were accepted by the Government—a clear signal of our commitment to reforming the system and bringing forward vital improvements.

Yet we must recognise the scale of the challenge. Even with those reforms under way, projects without current grid connectivity may not come online until the mid-2030s. That is simply not compatible with the Government’s aim of a decarbonised grid by 2030. It is essential that the development of the national grid moves in lockstep with the pace of renewable energy production and infrastructure delivery.

Therefore, Amendments 78 and 79A raise serious and timely issues. We must ensure that our grid strategy is not only fit for today but future-proofed for the decades to come. The principles of transparency—clear delivery timelines and strategy—and strategic planning for capacity must be at the core of that effort. That said, I note that Amendment 78 would require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to establish these new powers. There is perhaps a case to make for Parliament to have a say before the Secretary of State takes steps to implement powers that have come up as part of the consultation. I would be interested to hear whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, might be open to strengthening parliamentary oversight here.

Amendment 79A from my noble friend Lord Swire is a good and thoughtful probing amendment. I recognise his continual efforts in drawing this issue to this House’s attention. It seeks to explore how the planning system might better encourage the use of buried cabling as an alternative to overhead powerlines. This is an important point, particularly for rural communities where overhead transmission infrastructure can have a significant visual, environmental and social impact. Although undergrounding is not without cost or technical complexity, the long-term benefits in certain locations can outweigh those challenges. My noble friend is right to raise this. I hope that the Government will consider whether there are planning reforms that could help to support a more strategic and locally sensitive approach to powerline deployment.

The Minister may not be aware of the very active groups in Wales resisting the march of pylons through the Teifi and Tywi valleys. These groups are uniting the opposition parties against the Senedd Labour Government. The one I know particularly well is the Llandeilo Community Group Against Pylons.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104 in my name in this group and, in doing so, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation. First, I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage for the excellent meeting we had, together with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and renter groups Safer Renting, ACORN and the Renters’ Reform Coalition. I also thank my noble friend for the subsequent letter she sent, responding to the points raised at the meeting and for the additional conversations that I understand have taken place between Safer Renting and her officials.

Amendment 104 seeks to change the standard of proof required for rent repayment orders, based on offences under the Protection from Eviction Act. Currently, tenants must prove their case to a criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, even though these are civil proceedings in a civil tribunal. This change would make rent repayment orders a realistic option for renters who are victims of illegal eviction and harassment—serious offences that cause immense harm. As we know, most illegal evictions and harassment occur behind closed doors, without witnesses, and I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage recognises that these offences are harder to prove than other rent repayment order offences. The available evidence rarely meets the criminal standard, but may clearly satisfy the civil standard of balance of probabilities.

Civil claims for illegal eviction and harassment already use the civil standard and can carry far higher penalties. The definition of the civil wrongs of illegal eviction and harassment in the Housing Act 1988 uses the same definition as in the Protection from Eviction Act. For all intents and purposes, there is no distinction between the conduct targeted by both laws. Aligning the standard in rent repayment cases would bring consistency, fairness and a real access to redress.

The problem is clear. Research shows that at least 16,000 illegal evictions occurred in 2021-22, yet there were only 31 successful rent repayment orders made for those offences. This shows that the current system deters valid claims and does not provide a realistic route to redress for renters. It is vital that tenants can enforce their rights against criminal landlords. Yes, it is a small minority of landlords, but they are criminal landlords whose impact on renters’ lives, health and well-being is immense. As we heard in Committee, because the rent repayment mechanism is ineffective, these criminals gamble on breaking the law, knowing how hard it is for tenants to prove their case. Amendment 104 would make justice more attainable for renters and allow them to take a leading role in holding landlords to account.

I note from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage’s letter on this issue—copied to me and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell—that the Government are minded not to change their view on the standard of proof at this point. Of course, this is disappointing. However, I very much appreciate my noble friend’s acknowledgement that rent repayment orders are not currently working as well as they should for illegal eviction and harassment offences. As well as my noble friend’s commitment to monitor the impact of changes to rent repayment orders, this is very welcome. Collecting the right data will be required to assess whether rent repayment orders are working as intended in cases of illegal eviction and harassment after this Bill becomes law.

Moreover, I very much welcome my noble friend’s commitment to continue to work with noble Lords and stakeholders to assess whether rent repayment orders are working for illegal eviction and harassment offences, with a view for potential changes down the line. I ask my noble friend: can we now start gathering the evidence needed to assess the scale and impact of the problem? In addition to the report as set out by the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Best—I very much support Amendment 113—will my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage consider publishing PRS enforcement data, provided by local authorities, to include a record of the number of reports of suspected illegal eviction or harassment received by the authority, so we can get a better understanding of the scale of the problem? Will she consider mandating local authorities to provide the department with PRS enforcement data, instead of data reporting being voluntary, so again we can get a more complete dataset? Will she work with the Ministry of Justice to collect and publish regular data on rent repayment orders to facilitate monitoring of the system in respect of the volume and success of applications alleging illegal eviction and harassment?

Finally, as well as the issues renters face accessing redress through rent repayment orders, since 2012 there has been an 80% reduction in legal aid applications for bringing cases of illegal eviction and harassment in the civil courts. Therefore, if at all possible, could my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage assist me, Safer Renting and other noble Lords in getting a meeting with a Minister or an official at the MoJ to discuss the availability of legal aid for civil cases involving illegal eviction and harassment?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I have also enjoyed my encounters with the Minister, with her, to discuss these issues. I rise to speak to Amendment 110 in my name. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Best, who have added their names. Between them, they bring unsurpassed knowledge of both policing and housing matters, which are both very relevant to this amendment. I am also grateful to the organisations Safer Renting and ACORN for their assistance in highlighting the need for this amendment, and of course to the Bill Office for its clear and effective drafting.

This amendment is distinct from others in this group, as it does not deal with standards of proof. Rather, as I outlined at Second Reading and in Committee, it addresses the difficulties faced by those at the bottom end of the rental market and most at risk from abusive landlords. It is these people, the economically and socially vulnerable, who are the most likely to face illegal and sometimes forcible evictions. They are often also the least equipped to resist such behaviours.

A core problem that emerged in discussions with tenant organisations at the sharp end is insufficient clarity of understanding about what the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 requires of the police. There is a widespread and incorrect belief among police officers that illegal evictions are civil matters. This has resulted in a tiny number of prosecutions for illegal evictions. Indeed, statistics show that the police have not acted in 91% of cases.

I do not want to stretch the House’s patience with detailed case studies, but three quick examples will give colour to the types of incidents we are concerned about. A tenant returned to their flat to find that the landlord had changed the locks. When the police were contacted, they threatened to arrest the tenant for obstruction of the landlord and assisted in the removal of the tenant’s belongings. In other cases, landlords used tactics such as intimidation and turning off the water supply, as well as threatening and actually using force. When tenants called the police, they were told that it was a civil matter and to call back when an actual crime was being committed. In other cases, tenants went to the police station, but were turned away repeatedly on the basis that such evictions are a civil matter.

In Committee, I put down an amendment to clear up this misunderstanding of the law and improve co-ordination between the police and local authorities. It did not gain government support, which I find very disappointing, not least given the Bill’s avowed focus on those most in need of help. The Government’s response did address the co-ordination point, citing extra work for the authorities and police, and the instance of Liverpool, where the Minister has personal experience of such co-ordination working well.

Tenant bodies involved in the issues reflected in my amendment met with the Minister, and afterwards I received a copy of a letter from the Minister to them. I am, of course, very grateful for the Minister’s considerable engagement, but that letter does not address the role of the police in preventing or stopping illegal evictions before or as they happen. Where it does refer to the substance of today’s amendment, it says that the abolition of Section 21 will

“strengthen the tenants’ ability to argue that they were unlawfully forced out of their homes”.

With the greatest respect, that is very wide of the issue. It is a point for legal argument that may come up if the evicted tenant ever manages, or indeed dares, or can afford, to bring a legal claim against the landlord who put them out on the street. I remind noble Lords that we are dealing here with landlords who care little for the niceties of the law—people whom the Minister’s letter refers to as a

“small minority of unscrupulous landlords”.

But we have repeatedly been told that the purpose of the Bill is exactly to tackle these unscrupulous landlords.

This amendment has dropped reference to local authorities and focuses fully on the core legal issue. It requires a report to establish the level of understanding among tenants, landlords and the police of the criminal nature of illegal evictions and clarification of the correct legal situation, and the incorporation of that legal position and how it should be dealt with in the training of the police.

This is a modest amendment, but it is critical for those facing or experiencing illegal evictions or who feel powerless in the face of the violent actions of their landlords and find that the police seem to be against them when they should be protecting them. Not least, it is critical for police officers themselves, who are trying to follow and apply the law and do the right thing.

In Committee, I asked the Government to bring forward their own amendment to address this issue. They have chosen not to do so, instead writing to say that they are

“working towards updating the department’s guidance”.

That is simply not sufficient when we have one of the few opportunities in the Bill to address a real and terrible day-to-day experience of vulnerable renters. On this modest amendment, I believe we should stand firm. Its requirements are clear, deliverable and highly impactful on those most in need of our help through the Bill. I will, of course, listen to what the Minister says in response, but I anticipate seeking the view of the House on this amendment.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 87, 88 and 103, which I have signed. I add my thanks to the Minister, who has engaged with me on these amendments, among others in the Bill. She has always been courteous and has had good points of view.

These amendments were originally drafted by the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. To double-shot Lord Etherton’s efforts in this area, I signed them in Committee. The amendments have been taken over and very ably introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie.

Lord Etherton viewed this selection of amendments as being his effort to try to manage a quasi-judicial process. He was looking at it, of course, with a very practised eye, having been the Master of the Rolls. He was fully knowledgeable on the various large civil penalties that are in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, for which the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a 20-page memorandum to help local authorities through this particular maze of quasi-judicial process.

The problem, as Lord Etherton saw it, was that this was not a level playing field for local authorities. The best local authorities would have plenty of highly trained resources to look into a quasi-judicial matter with great fairness, and promptly—promptness being important for both sides of any argument. However, the local authorities whose resources were most stretched or at the bottom end of the quality scale would produce problems. Lord Etherton felt that it was important to set the law in this area so that it would be not for the best or the average local authority but at a reasonably modest rate, so that every local authority could execute, with fairness, whatever quasi-judicial issues they were dealing with. Therefore, with Amendments 87 and 88, he was keen that the standard of proof should move from the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. He felt that was more in keeping with how the Housing and Planning Act 2016 had turned out.

Moving on to Amendment 103, Lord Etherton noted that there were some large penalties in that Act, the highest penalty being £30,000. The £40,000 penalties we see in this Bill are, I suppose, simply £30,000 grossed up for inflation. He was not worried necessarily about £40,000 as an amount—it was consistent with the £30,000, as he saw it—but he was worried that, under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the £30,000 penalties were available only where the mental element was intention and not for offences where the mental element was recklessness.

Of course, there is a great difficulty in the law for deciding what the difference is between negligence, recklessness and intention. It is very much something on which, in the judicial process, a great deal of training is given to try to allow courts and judges to be utterly consistent up and down the land so that one has clarity for negligence, recklessness and intention. Lord Etherton’s feeling was that recklessness is very difficult. The 20-page memo for the Housing and Planning Act 2016 will be considerably longer if one is going to try to educate local authorities on what “recklessness” truly means. So he was very keen to remove recklessness from Clause 93. I would be very grateful if I could hear where the Minister feels Lord Etherton was wrong in his analysis on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for their amendments. Amendments 89, 92 and 101 would reduce the maximum civil penalties for offences in relation to illegal evictions—

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I thank the Minister for thanking me, but I have not spoken to this amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think somebody must have assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, was going to speak. I apologise for that.

For these reforms to be effective, they must be enforced robustly and fairly. Our approach to civil penalties is fundamental to this. Landlords who commit first-time and minor non-compliance will be subject to civil penalties of up to £7,000. However, for serious and repeat non-compliance, landlords will be subject to civil penalties of up to £40,000. The principle that local authorities can impose civil penalties for housing offences is well established. Since they were introduced in 2017, civil penalties have proved an effective enforcement tool. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I do not think we have any need to question the professionalism of local authorities in dealing with these matters. They are more than well versed in exercising legal duties and have legal professionals to support them.

It is important to emphasise that £40,000 will be the maximum, not the norm. Local authorities will need to have a clear rationale for why they have set a civil penalty at a certain level and apply aggravating and mitigating factors. Penalties of up to £40,000 will be available only in respect of landlords who have committed serious or repeat non-compliance. Initial failure to sign up to the database, for example, will carry a penalty of only up to £7,000. However, local authorities will be able to impose a penalty of up to £40,000 if the landlord continues or repeats this conduct after being given an initial, lower penalty.

When considering whether to issue a civil penalty, local authorities are required to issue a notice of intent—a bit like the notice about parking that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned—allowing time for landlords to make representations. The local authority will need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the landlord has committed an offence. If the landlord disagrees with the imposition or amount of the penalty, they will be able to appeal to the First- tier Tribunal. This approach to civil penalties ensures efficiency for local authorities, protection for tenants, and fairness for landlords. As noted in Committee, we will also publish new guidance to help local authorities pursue civil penalties with greater consistency and effectiveness.

Amendments 98 and 99 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. She spoke about the scale of fines. We have increased the maximum civil penalties to take account of inflation since the £30,000 and £5,000 maximums were introduced for the similar housing offences that I referred to earlier. We want to ensure that the deterrent value of civil penalties is maintained. As I have stressed before, they are maximum penalty amounts. Local authorities will need to take into account a number of factors, such as the culpability of the landlord and the harm caused to tenants in determining the appropriate level of the civil penalty.

On the point about the single landlord in the depths of the Welsh countryside, and to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, housing is devolved in Wales, so it is a different matter altogether in Wales.

Amendments 98 and 99 would require there to be persistent breaches of certain provisions in Clause 83 or persistent offences committed under Clause 93 before the local authority could fine an individual. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is acting in good faith by laying these amendments, but they would have significant negative consequences for the effectiveness of the database. Under these amendments, individuals could avoid penalties for failing to register or knowingly or recklessly providing false information to the database operator, to name two of the relevant provisions, unless they did so persistently over a protracted period. For the database to be useful to users, it is important that as many landlords as possible register with the service. Indeed, as the noble Baroness commented in Committee:

“It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords”.—[Official Report, 14/5/25; col. 2219.]


I would add local authorities.

I fear that these amendments could discourage registration and reduce the quality of the data recorded by watering down the threshold at which financial penalties will be imposed. Furthermore, it would be unfair to those good landlords—the vast majority—who comply with the legislative requirements from the outset. It may create an environment where negligent landlords could escape sanction for significant periods of time, and disadvantage the compliant landlords the Bill intends to support.

I recognise that the noble Baroness is trying to protect landlords from being unduly punished. Therefore, I hope she is reassured that the level of fines is the maximum level rather than the standard. Local authorities must also be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a requirement under Clause 83 has been breached or an offence under Clause 93 has been committed before they can impose a fine. Moreover, new guidance will be published in due course to help local authorities with consistency and effectiveness.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cromwell]

110: After Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
“Offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977: report(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report about the application of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, including—(a) an assessment of the level of understanding among tenants, landlords, and the police about the criminal nature of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977,(b) a plan to increase awareness about the nature of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 among groups in paragraph (a),(c) a clarificatory statement about the nature of offences under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 which tenants, landlords and the police can use as a reference, (d) the reasonable steps which the police should take to prevent such offences being committed, and(e) the training and relevant reference materials which must be made available to all police officers to support the discharge of their duties under this section and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.(2) The report under subsection (1) must be published within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and must be laid before Parliament.”

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all those who spoke in support of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, was very candid in his acknowledgement—he is on his way here, I believe—of the issue with the police’s application of the 1997 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Best, underlined the need for clarification and the achievable nature of this amendment. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her kind support for the amendment and what she rather charmingly called the “formidable trio” who were putting it forward.

Finally, I thank the Minister for her comments, which I listened to with care. I have to say that her assurance that, if I may quote, she or her department is “actively working” to “explore” with a number of various bodies what to do is, I am afraid, not good enough. It is clear what needs to be and what should be done within the next six months, which would solve the core issue here: the correct understanding and application of the 1997 Act to do right by vulnerable tenants, target rogue landlords and support the police in the correct performance of their duties. For that reason, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to which I have added my name. I am particularly grateful for the warm words of my noble friend Lord Jamieson and for the support of the various carers organisations which do such an important job in our society.

The Bill will allow a landlord to take possession of a property for a family reason. Our small extension would allow a nearby property to be taken back in hand if it were needed to house a carer. In the meantime, it would be available, for example, as a dwelling for a struggling local couple or an individual seeking a home.

With ever-growing numbers of the aged and disabled, with the move to smaller homes and smaller families, and with a scarcity of care homes and hospices, the provision for short-term housing of professional carers, often changing at short notice, will become more and more important in coping with our ageing population. This is particularly true in rural areas, which are being so battered by other changes the Government have felt it necessary to make.

I declare an interest, recorded in the register, as the owner of such a cottage bought specifically for a carer and generally let to a local on a shorthold tenancy. Such tenancies have expanded the rental market hugely in this country and will be completely swept away by the Bill. So, we need to do what we can together in this House to moderate its perverse consequences—notably in this case to make things better for carers. Fortunately, neither my husband nor I yet need a carer, but we may need one eventually, and my concern, like that of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is a general one. I can guarantee that I am not alone.

I have no idea how the Government will find the 1 million more rented homes Savills believes we need by 2031 unless they make some sensible technical changes to the Bill, which is being constructively debated by knowledgeable experts here in this House. Our Amendment 21 falls into that category. I hope others will join us in the Lobby and in calling on the Government to think again on this issue.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak to this amendment but, since I am, I declare that I do not rent out any residential property, but my children are tenants and rent out property in their own right. There are two sources of potential misery here: one is turning out a tenant, the other is being unable to provide care for a family member. I know how I would feel if I was in a situation where I had to deny a family member professional care despite owning a property that could accommodate a carer. I am interested to hear how the Minister feels about this, what she would do in those circumstances, and what other Members of this House would do if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, calls a vote on this matter.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 22, I also express my support for Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I declare an interest as a property owner of both commercial land and residential houses. If one acquires planning permission on a parcel of land that might have, to take a brownfield example, a few workmen’s terraced houses or, in a rural setting, perhaps a farmworkers’ cottage that might be in the middle of a proposed development, my amendment seeks to allow the landowner or developer to gain possession of said property or properties.

When I look out of the window of my flat in King’s Cross, which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, alluded to and which was developed by Argent—a brilliant place-maker that has worked in Manchester, created a marvellous area in Tottenham Hale, and produced a high-quality mix of leisure, retail, high-end accommodation, medium-level accommodation and affordable accommodation, but which takes decades to assemble land—I see commercial property that has been bought by developers and converted into flats. Many of these developments have a high proportion of affordable accommodation, which seems to be the largest amount of development happening in Britain at the moment.

However, this should go both ways. We in this country hear we are losing industry and are only a service economy. We should be doing our utmost to produce jobs. The unemployment figures are already rising. If the examples I have mentioned achieve planning permission and the tenant is removed—the reality is that the developer or landowner would do that by negotiation and try to find suitable alternative accommodation for that person—but the tenant then says, “No, I’m not leaving at all”, then the whole opportunity for growth ceases. Were the development to go ahead then, because of the planning permission it has achieved, a great number of jobs would be created in the short-term in its construction, which might take two to four years, and then in the occupation of those commercial buildings. It is a win-win. The Government say they want growth, but if they do not allow my amendment, nor that of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, then they are not acting in the best interests of growth.

I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on providing accommodation for a carer, which is very well thought through. We should all support it. It seems that there is a great deal of support around the House for it. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is somewhat wider than mine—it is on redevelopment and regeneration—but they are effectively the same thing: they are looking for growth.

I have sat in on much of this debate. It is a shame that the Government are not listening. Good Governments listen to differing views and take note. There are many good amendments being put forward. Government through ideology and a large majority does not lead to good law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

You can use the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6, when you are redeveloping property.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

In respect of Amendment 21, does the Minister accept that denying someone the ability to move in a carer to look after their family in the way that was outlined will be an enormous temptation for abuse? The best outcome in that context is likely to be that people will simply hold the property empty for very many years in case they might need it. That will not create much help for the rental sector.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will reiterate my comments. When evicting one tenant to put another tenant in, you may well be evicting somebody else’s carer to put your carer in. Of course, we do not want to see properties sitting empty but, if people have a property, that is their choice. The idea that you might evict one carer to put another carer in, for example, is just not acceptable.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I hear what the Minister is saying about pushing a tenant out to put a carer in, but she is touching on a very specific case, where you are putting out a tenant who happens to be a carer so as to put another carer in. I would submit to her that that is a very tiny example.

The sheer emotional impact of not being able to care for somebody by putting a carer in will simply invite people to abuse the system: to find ways to get around it, or simply to hold the property empty. I wonder how Members of this House would react if they were in the situation of not being able to provide care to a loved one because, despite owning a property, they were unable to put a carer into it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I simply add that it does not have to be another carer; it could be any of the key workers who we talk about so often who are in need of housing. There are other options for people. If landlords are receiving rent for that property, while I appreciate that there may be further shortages making it difficult to find somewhere near enough to the property, but there is the option of using the rent secured on one property to rent alternative accommodation for a carer.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I will add a brief footnote to what he has just said. As we heard in the last debate, there has been considerable concern about the capacity of the courts to handle the volume of appeals that will go to the tribunals when the Bill becomes an Act. The backlog has been going up: in the first quarter of 2025, the average time between a landlord submitting a claim and getting possession was over seven months—32.5 weeks, up from 29.8 weeks a year ago.

The Minister uses a different figure—eight weeks—but that covers only getting a possession order, not actually getting the property back. In an earlier debate, the Minister implied that it was actually quite difficult for a tenant to challenge an increase in rent. I respectfully disagree with that. There is a whole range of organisations that will give tenants advice on how to challenge an increase from the landlord.

This Government have made it clear that, unlike the previous Administration, they are not prepared to wait until the necessary reforms to the court processes are in place before they activate the Bill. That is a decision they are perfectly entitled to take, and it will be welcomed by tenants. However, a necessary corollary of that decision should be a process to minimise the chance of the courts being overwhelmed, which would be in the interest of neither tenant nor landlord. That is what Amendment 25 does.

The likelihood of the rent—a market rent when it was fixed—diverging significantly from CPI or RPI over four years is quite small. The certainty that goes with that guarantee will be welcomed, I think, by both tenant and landlord. If, after four years, there is a divergence, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has explained, the rent can then catch up. As someone who voted for the Housing Act 1988, which abolished rent control, I see no problem with this measure to simply smooth increases over a four-year period. Again, speaking personally, if at the end of the four or five years the courts have shown themselves to be up to speed, with no backlog, I would be happy to see this provision lapse, but in the meantime, I hope the Government will smile on it.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

If I may add one note to what the noble Lord has just said, it is very common in commercial contracts to have CPI over a series of periods followed by a reset to market level, in part because CPI may take it up too high and it comes back down to market level. I think that needs to be part of this amendment.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we support the amendments in this group concerning rent affordability, a matter that strikes at the heart of the lived reality of millions of tenants. We welcome the long-overdue commitment to abolishing Section 21 no-fault evictions but, as Shelter rightly said in a release only this week:

“For every day the government doesn’t pass this bill, another 70 households will be threatened with homelessness because no fault evictions are being kept on life support for no good reason”.


I hope that we will soon get some reassurances about when this key measure will begin, to overcome some of the rumours in the media of late about it being delayed.

We also welcome all the work to fix the issue of the supply of decent homes across all tenures, but private rent inflation is persistently outpacing both wage growth and general inflation. According to the latest data—we heard some of it from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, earlier—average rents in England rose by 7.1% in the 12 months to May 2025. Meanwhile, wages continue to grow more slowly than rents, with the most recent data showing annual growth of 5.2%. Rents have outstripped wages every month for nearly two years; that is, since September 2023. Over the past three years, the average annual rent has increased by £2,650, rising from £12,800 to £15,450, a 21% increase, compared with—for all the owner-occupiers here—just a 4% growth in house prices over the same period. This relentless rise is not just a statistical anomaly. It is a driver of poverty, hardship and, in some—way too many—cases, homelessness.

Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and supported by me and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, proposes a mechanism to smooth in-tenancy rent increases by limiting them to the lower of wage growth or inflation. The Bill currently restricts rent increases to once per year and allows tenants to challenge above-market rents at the First-tier Tribunal, as we heard in the previous group. However, “market rent” is often calculated based on arbitrary information, such as advertised rents for new tenancies, figures that will inevitably and typically be inflated and do not reflect the actual rents paid by sitting tenants. This methodology leaves tenants exposed to rent hike evictions—Section 21 in all but name—undermining the very security that the Bill purports to deliver.

Tenants on lower incomes will be particularly exposed. For the many renters who have no alternative but to rent, the cheapest places they can find at market rent are already, by definition, unaffordable. The tribunal process will help, but not fix, this problem, and certainly not soon. Generation Rent’s analysis found that while 73% of tenants who challenge a rent increase through the tribunal succeed in reducing the proposed rent, the average increase awarded is still 14%, and only a small minority of cases result in annualised increases below wage or rent inflation. The process is also onerous and complex, deterring many tenants from pursuing it at all.

Smoothing in-tenancy rent increases is therefore not just a technical fix but a vital safeguard during this period of transition. It will provide tenants with the predictability and stability needed to budget and to remain in their homes, free from the constant threat of unaffordable rent hikes. For landlords, it offers an indexed yield without the administrative burden and uncertainty of tribunal proceedings.

I ask in particular that the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench resist the temptation and lure to comment on these proposals as rent controls. That would suggest that the years of knowledge and experience of the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, have rendered them somehow incapable of being able to understand the difference between rent control and something else. This proposal is fundamentally different. It is time limited. It applies only to in-tenancy increases. It does not set market-wide caps. It is designed to stabilise rents for existing tenants, not to distort the market or stifle investment.

Beyond these immediate protections, we must look to the medium term while we wait for the much-needed and long-awaited additional supply of homes. That is why I have tabled Amendment 114, requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of rent affordability with the express aim of establishing a national rental affordability commission. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her support and the Renters’ Reform Coalition for their work on this issue. The coalition has found that nearly one-third of private renters—an estimated 3.8 million people—always or often struggle to afford essentials such as groceries due to the amount that they spend on rent, and nearly one in 10 have sold or pawned personal items to be able to afford to rent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 58 is in my name. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who apologises that he is unable to be with us today but who has added his name to the amendment, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking —and indeed to the Minister and her officials for the time they have taken to discuss the background to this with me.

This amendment is at heart a simple and technical one. The Bill says that if you ask a tenant to leave on the grounds that you are selling the property but then the property fails to sell, as happens in about a third of cases, you are not allowed to rent the property out for a period of 12 months. It simply has to stand empty and impossible to rent out for a year. That means that numerous properties would, for the crime of not selling, be punished by standing empty and unrentable. My amendment does not seek to change the principle or any other element or clause of the Bill. It simply introduces a rational and balanced obligation to stand empty in this way for six months rather than 12. That is all that it does. I will now set out the reasons why.

On financial logic, when I and others suggested that 12 months was too long, the answer given was that 12 months’ lost rent would prevent evil landlords from claiming they were selling simply as a means to eject a tenant and then re-letting the property at a higher rent. The theory was that after the tenant had left, the landlord would jack up the rent to a high level, both to recoup their interim losses and make profits. Let us look at that proposition rationally.

First, if the landlord has a valid claim to increase the rent, the Bill already provides for that. A landlord would simply seek a normal rent increase rather than going to the dramatic and expensive process and risk of requiring a tenant to leave and then hoping to re-let at a much higher rent.

Secondly, in Committee I set out the mathematical calculation behind a six-month void period; noble Lords will be relieved to know that I do not propose to repeat the numerical details here tonight, or those that I provided subsequently in a meeting with the Minister and her officials. However, the numbers demonstrated clearly that the supposedly avaricious landlord, even if having the property empty for only six months, as I propose, rather than 12, would have to put the rent up by a very substantial amount—in excess of 200% or even 300%—to recoup their rental losses. I say nothing of the other costs, including the council tax surcharge bills and the risks of leaving a building empty. Such a huge rent hike would be impossible. The rent asked would be completely uncompetitive against other properties not carrying such an inflated rent level. In short, being obliged to leave a property empty for six months is more than enough of a financial burden and barrier so as to make the strategy so feared by the Minister simply untenable.

Thirdly, it was suggested that those nasty landlords might lie about selling a property or put it on the market at an absurdly high price, presumably in collusion with a disreputable estate agent—there are some, I believe. I therefore draw noble Lords’ attention to the second part of the amendment. This requires the landlord to provide, if necessary, to the local authority or the court hard evidence of marketing, pricing and offers, et cetera. A landlord flouting these requirements would be breaking the law and punishable accordingly. I understand that an agent colluding with them would also be acting contrary to the law. I remind noble Lords that any landlord taking this approach would face not only the legal risk of a false sales process but ending up with the property back on the rental market at an absurd and uncompetitive level of rent and, on top of that, losing six months’ rent.

Turning to other reasons, having made the argument on the rental conspiracy theory advanced in defence of the 12 months of standing empty, I heard that the landlord might have “other reasons” for wanting to get rid of the tenant, such as those that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, touched upon. Let us examine this argument. Whatever these other reasons might be, the Minister has confirmed that the Bill makes it perfectly clear that the landlord has only four grounds for requiring a tenant to leave: sale, anti-social behaviour, moving in a relative or persistent failure to pay rent. If the landlord cannot demonstrate that one or more of these cases applies—for example, through not providing conclusive evidence of a genuine sales process—that landlord will be in breach of the law as well as having the financial penalty of the months of lost rent. It is a fundamental of the Bill to block any attempts to get around Section 21 by other means. I entirely agree with that. However, as I hope that I have demonstrated, this amendment is no such thing. The “no renting out” mechanism to prevent abuse remains, but the amendment makes it proportionate rather than excessive and heavy-handed.

Standing back from the detail, we are frequently assured that most landlords are good landlords. Perhaps some in this House have friends who are landlords. Perhaps some Members of this House let out property. This provision to leave a property unlet will not apply just to a subset of bad landlords. It will apply to anyone who rents out a property and genuinely wants or needs to sell their property but does not manage to do so. It also, for the same 12 months, deprives the market of rental properties—a market already bedevilled by a lack of available property to rent. That does not help tenants. This is not only unnecessary but manifestly unfair and will actively harm the supply of rental property. The Minister has accepted in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that landlords will lose out, but says that it will be in a small number of circumstances. Where is the evidence for that—or that the six-month penalty is not enough?

I underline that I am no lobbyist for landlords. I have spoken repeatedly in this House about the need to protect the poorest and the most vulnerable tenants who are abused and evicted by genuinely unscrupulous landlords. I have a later amendment seeking to prevent illegal evictions which is specifically on that theme. However, as the Minister has stressed, a successful rental sector is about a balance of rights. The amendment that I am speaking to does not do away with the relevant part of the Bill. It simply reduces the punishment —and it is a punishment—for not managing to sell a property from 12 months to six months. Those six months of costs and no income are, as I have demonstrated previously, more than sufficient punishment to make unworkable the avoidance strategies that so vexed the Minister and to meet the objectives of the Bill.

To be frank, a prohibition on renting out for 12 months is an impractical and disproportionate sledgehammer level of overkill that does not belong in a Bill that creates a set of checks and balances to produce a new, fairer environment for property rental. It also works against its own objective by artificially restricting the availability of property that is available to rent. That is why I feel strongly that this amendment is proportionate and needed. I will listen carefully to what any others and the Minister have to say, but I may need to test the opinion of the House in due course.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 59. I am grateful to the Minister for the time that she spent with me and a representative of the Shared Owners’ Network after Committee, when we discussed in further detail the problems facing shared ownership leaseholders in blocks that have been blighted by the cladding disaster. This amendment is needed to protect shared owners, who are accidental landlords, from the financial problems that they will face if they are unable to finalise a sale after issuing a ground 1A notice.

Many shared owners, of course, continue to live in the property which they half-bought from the registered social landlord. Many shared owners have simply had to move to get on with their life; they have been unable to sell the property in the meantime, so they have sublet. Shared owners are allowed to sublet—they have to get permission from their RSL to do this—but the rent that they receive from the subletting may not actually be enough to cover their costs, with the mortgage, the rent, the service charge and the insurance charges on a block affected by the cladding disaster. Those costs may well exceed the local market rent.

Many shared owners who have been subletting for a number of years have seen their financial situation considerably weakened, with many effectively losing hundreds of pounds every month as a result of subletting. These are people who employed all the professional people that they should have employed when they bought the property owned by a registered social landlord. They took every precaution available to them and bear no responsibility at all for the problem that has engulfed them.

When we met, although she expressed sympathy for this group, the Minister could not offer any mitigation for the unsustainable costs which a 12-month ban on re-letting would create for these shared owners. This is not a satisfactory outcome for a cohort who qualified for an affordable home because their income was not high enough to buy on the open market; this was their first step on the ladder. The Minister argued that the proposed ban protects tenants, but it fails to protect shared owners who are actually also tenants.

Shared owners face a much riskier sales process with the Bill. They have to give four months’ notice to their tenants, and that means they have no certainty at all that the offer to buy the flat will actually result in an exchange, or indeed a completion. Shared owners have to give the first option to buy their flat back to the registered social landlord so they can find another shared ownership owner, and there are strict qualifications, so they are fishing in a relatively small pool. Prospective buyers need to meet the criteria for shared ownership, and that means that the risk of a failed sale, even at a late stage, is actually much higher for a shared owner, and particularly high if you are selling a flat in a block with unsafe cladding.

Should a sale fall through, as is frequent, particularly for these types of properties, shared owners, like other landlords under the Bill, face the prospect of a 12-month void when they will be banned from re-letting their empty property and forced to cover its costs without any rental income.

These people never planned to become landlords. It was not part of their vision at all. They will have had no ability to plan for this outcome or make provision for extended void periods. This will become completely unaffordable for the vast majority of shared owners who, as I have said, are not as financially resilient as other leaseholders, otherwise they would have bought a property on the open market. They will have to pay for the property they now live in, as well as the property they have been unable to sell.

Of course, they will continue to market their property for sale after the first sale has fallen through, but facing the mounting unmet costs of an empty property will actually put their homes at risk of repossession if they fall into arrears, as is very likely. Also—and this is worse—it puts incredible pressure on them to accept any offer from a buyer as soon as possible, even if the offer is below the RICS pre-sale valuation. If they do that, due to the rules of the scheme, they will have to compensate the registered social landlord for the loss of value on their share, as well as losing out on their own share. So, the unintended consequence of the 12-month ban on re-letting is that it puts shared owners selling a property on the back foot, unable to wait for a suitable offer at a fair market value.

It is just not acceptable to punish shared owners who have had to become accidental landlords, including as a result of the building safety crisis, and have already suffered considerable financial harm. In her correspondence, the Minister explained that shared owners would have the option to ask their provider whether a buyback would be possible rather than leaving the property empty.

This could provide a solution, but it will need the Minister to make some changes, As the Minister knows, buybacks are currently very much at the discretion of the registered provider. At the moment they have only limited access to funding to do this, using either their own funds or recycled capital grant funding.

If the Minister is unable to accept my amendment, will the Government ring-fence some of the dedicated funding to registered providers in its affordable homes programme so that they can swiftly buy back properties from those shared owners who fail to sell after issuing a ground 1A notice? This would enable housing associations to add to the stock of affordable property to rent at well below the cost of a new build and avoid leaving a property empty. If the Minister can neither accept the amendment nor give that guarantee, I am minded to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time—probably next Monday.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Cromwell Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. This should be directed also to the noble Lord, Lord Bird. As I read in Clause 1 of the Bill that all existing tenancies are made periodic tenancies, that must involve the ceasing of the use of Section 21.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

That is what the noble Baroness is saying.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: this will bring about the abolition of Section 21.

That failure has rightly eroded trust. It now falls to this Government to deliver what was promised without further delay. Renters should not be asked to wait any longer for the basic security that this legislation is intended to provide. At the same time, we on these Benches recognise that proper implementation matters. Noble Lords would not find that surprising, given that every other member of this Bill team is a former or current councillor, with the exception of me.

The changes this Bill brings are significant and must be supported by clear guidance, well-prepared systems and proper resourcing, not least for the courts and local authorities. Yes, we need preparation time, but that preparation must not become an excuse for indefinite delay. There is a question of balance. Where regulation or consultation is needed, that work must of course be done, but it should be carried out with urgency and to a clear and published timetable. Renters deserve certainty about when these protections will come into force, but so too do landlords. Those operating in good faith need to understand the new framework that they will be working within and to have time to prepare for it, but they should not be left in limbo. The entire sector needs clarity and consistency. Delays would only undermine confidence in this long-awaited reform.

I have only one central question for the Minister. The Government publicly stated that Section 21 would be abolished “immediately” in their 2024 manifesto. However, Clause 145(5)(a) indicates that the abolition will take effect two months after the Bill is passed. The Bill also says that this is a decision for the Secretary of State. Can she please use this opportunity to clarify—my apologies if she has already explained this endlessly, but I am still slightly confused on this question—which timeframe is correct? It would be helpful, for instance, to understand the time lapse between the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and the commencement date of the abolition of Section 21.

Finally, many of us were here until 1 am on Tuesday and until midnight last night, and this is now our seventh day. I am certain that there are many Peers who would do that again and again to get to the abolition of Section 21—to get to, at pace, that long-promised, much-needed change in the law. I look forward now to hearing when.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Perhaps I may offer the briefest of comments. At the risk of being struck by lightning: on the seventh day, the Lord rested. Let us hope we all get some rest soon.

I mention two words: equilibrium and scramble. Equilibrium is what we all seek, but it is a fact of life that one woman’s equilibrium may be different to another woman’s equilibrium. The perpetual life of politics is trying to find an equilibrium between different viewpoints. Regarding scramble, there will be a scramble whenever this comes in, and that is not a reason to put it off.

We touched on the database yesterday. There are bits of the Bill that will come in more slowly, but Section 21, to echo the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, will definitely go. If the Bill achieves nothing else, Section 21 will go.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who, as always, so passionately opened this group. I thank him for all his knowledge and particularly the passion that he brings on anything to do with homes, homelessness and vulnerable people.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 278, 286 and 291, along with others in his name, would bring the majority of the Act into force on the day it receives Royal Assent, save for a few areas requiring further regulation or consultation. We on these Benches have consistently urged the Government to not take this approach. We have called on them to reaffirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This is essential to protect both tenants and landlords from abrupt and potentially unfair changes.

A phased approach would allow landlords, tenants and letting agents time to understand and adapt to the new legal framework. Commencing the Act immediately upon passage does not provide sufficient time to do this. We simply cannot expect landlords to react and comply with significant new requirements on day 1. Indeed, the evidence bears this this out. In a recent survey conducted by Paragon, 57% of landlords said they had heard of the legislation but did not fully understand its implications, and a further 39% said they knew little about it. Those statistics point clearly to a knowledge gap in the market—one that we must not ignore. Therefore, we believe that a clear transition period is necessary.

Amendments 281, 287, 288 and 289, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, present a credible and constructive challenge to the Government’s current position. They propose a model that echoes the approach taken by the predecessor to the Bill—an approach grounded in prospective lawmaking. Phase 1 in that Bill would have applied the new rules only to new tenancies with at least six months’ notice, and phase 2 would extend the rules to existing tenancies no less than 12 months later. This two-phase model provides a reasonable and practical path forward, allowing time for proper education, preparation and implementation. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on these proposals and to recognise the importance of a fair and orderly transition.

We all agree that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that we need a functioning rental market with enough good-quality homes to meet growing demand. We need more homes in the right places. This Bill, regrettably, puts that in danger. Rather than boosting supply, it risks driving landlords out of the market, shrinking the number of available homes and pushing rents even higher. If we get this wrong, renters will pay the price. Balance is essential. At present, we believe this Bill does not strike that balance.

Before I sit down, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness on how she has conducted the first Bill that she is taken through Committee, and all noble Lords who have taken part in excellent, well-informed debates over the past seven days. I look forward to Report.