English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Cromwell and Lord Fuller

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Forgive me for interrupting. The noble Lord is giving us a lot of very interesting information, but we are on Report and I just wonder how much more he has to give us.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

The answer is not very much. I am getting to the nub of the point.

The Government have said one thing and done another. That is an important legal point, because in 2007 when they tried to use these same provisions that they now seek to rely on under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, Mr Justice Ouseley, in his judgment in January 2010, found that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had changed the decision-making approach in an unfair and unlawful manner. He said:

“the Secretary of State set out repeatedly the basis upon which he would refuse proposals, and without any warning adopted a wholly different approach, and reached decisions which, on the original approach, he would not have reached. … On the face of it, the decisions taken by the Secretary of State … made a mockery of the consultation process”.

This amendment would stop the jiggery-pokery and the changing and moving of the goalposts during the process that we have seen today. Furthermore, a previous part of that botched process in 2010 was quashed by Mr Justice Cranston, a former Labour MP, because the tabulation of costs and benefits alongside a full plain English explanation of what it would mean to the man on the street, which included a full statement of the total forecast cost to the council tax payer had not been done—and of course it has not been done. Our counties, subject to LGR in this round, are being pushed into a financial leap in the dark—brought to you by the same people who told the nation that business rates would not be put up for pubs.

I hope that my learned friends run the rule, following the 2010 judgments by Justice Ousley and Justice Cranston as a guide, but it is now clear that the Government never intended to follow the rules and have not even bothered to run the numbers anyway, resulting in a no man’s land of councils being too small to be big or too big to be small. We were promised better than this. I strongly support the amendments because we have seen gerrymandering in this process. That is not good enough, and these amendments would prevent it happening in future. I hope councils do not waste too much time on this until my learned friends have completed their deliberations, because they sorely need to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Good morning, my Lords, and indeed it is good morning. I support Amendment 318C, which has just been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thurlow. I should start by declaring that I have a son who works for a commercial property company.

My noble friend Lord Thurlow made a series of powerful points about the effects of this amendment, and I agree with him that a one-size-fits-all approach to rent review clauses is not appropriate, given the very wide range of properties rented by businesses, from perhaps a single office or lock-up garage rented by an SME to thousands of square feet of custom-designed and built warehousing rented by a global corporate.

The Government’s intention of assisting SMEs by preventing upwards-only rent reviews is consistent with protecting tenants from exploitative landlords, and I have, and I am sure most noble Lords have, no difficulty at all with that. However, negotiations between large corporates and commercial property companies are conducted between well advised and experienced professionals. Such tenants are large, powerful and of high value, and commercial property companies make great efforts to attract them and agree terms across a variety of issues, of which rent reviews are but one. These often complex negotiations between large organisations are conducted by staff with, I suggest, a good deal more detailed training, knowledge and experience of the subject than, with the greatest of respect, most parliamentarians. Neither party needs any help or interference from Parliament about the specifics of rent review terms they negotiate to include or exclude as part of their discussions.

This all seems very far away from government business, much less any manifesto commitment, and more like a hastily considered afterthought to the Bill for the residential sector that was before this House some months ago. As my noble friend Lord Thurlow has set out, for large businesses it will introduce instability, destroy value, damage the confidence of lenders, shareholders and investors alike and harm the much mentioned growth agenda.

That brings me back to where I started: dealing with the difference between an SME and a large business and how we determine the cut-off point between them. Will the Minister consider revising this aspect of the Bill so that a prospective tenant that is a publicly listed company will have the ability to opt out and retain it as a negotiating point, rather than have this aspect of their negotiations predetermined by the Government? These are not SMEs brow-beaten by a grasping landlord but large and powerful entities quite capable of navigating the give and take in negotiating leases that meet their needs. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this suggestion as a practical way to improve this amendment and mitigate the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late, so I will be brief. I support the valedictory amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I also associate myself with what may be valedictory comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It is going to be a shame to lose their surveying expertise and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has contributed so valuably over the last year in all manner of property-related matters covering the built environment which underpins our economy and social infrastructure.

Clause 85 and the related Schedule 34 provide for an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but it is going to have so many unintended consequences that will chill new investment in all manner of privately funded capital projects. I note that this provision was not in the manifesto nor trailed prior to the publication of the Bill. It has simply been fly-tipped at the end of this Bill, where it sticks out like a sore thumb in a jarring juxtaposition with the Bill’s other provisions.

I support Amendment 318C and its intention to protect small and medium-sized enterprises, but there is a serious risk of further damaging overseas investor confidence in the UK. If we are to attract private investment in large-scale developments, which may include data centres, city office blocks, mixed-use developments with residential property above them, the City of London and huge warehouse fulfilment centres, some sort of revenue growth is required over the life of the asset, without which investments will be placed elsewhere in other countries and other jurisdictions.

Setting small and medium-sized enterprises to one side for the moment, the large-scale tenants of these buildings are, so to speak, grown-up adults. I am not sure that Amazon needs additional protections from the law when contracting for a distribution warehouse. It is for the market and the law of contract to determine that precise equilibrium between those who take the risk of putting up the building and those who take the risk of occupying it. It is certainly not for government in a market economy to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach. This will chill not just future building but also the existing carrying value of those property assets which are owned by pension funds and whose rents support our senior citizens in retirement. Once again, it is the poorest in society who will be adversely affected by this misguided and misdirected sixth-form debating society approach to our economy.

I am grateful to the former Ernst & Young ITEM Club chief economist Martin Beck, who tells me that a blanket ban, as contemplated by this Bill, will cause an £11 billion downgrade of pension fund assets, meaning £2 billion less construction investment per year in the UK—and overall, when everything is taken into account, a £4.2 billion a year hit to our national economy. We need large-scale investments to grow the economy and to provide work for groundworkers, brickies, roofers, painters, decorators and our pensioners.

Schedule 34 represents yet another act of self-inflicted harm to our economy and our way of life, reducing our international investor confidence in the stability of UK plc with our rule of contract and well-established property rights, chasing away inward investment by a Government who say they are keen on growth but act in every respect to damage it.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Cromwell and Lord Fuller

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 182A, which has just been so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and have very little to add, other than to say that I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 178A, as he does.

Implementation and monitoring of this very ambitious project need a proper, open tender process, for two basic reasons: value for money and the fact that the private sector locally, including farmers, is going to know the land, the systems and the available resources far better than the rather uncharitably described “sticky fingers” of Natural England—but then I suggested earlier that it might “run amok”, so perhaps I should not be too bold. Natural England’s engagement in direct delivery, if it can actually deliver it, which is a question mark, should surely be the last resort, and it will almost certainly be considerably more expensive. I thoroughly support my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in his amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will talk briefly in support of Amendment 182A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. This Bill should be shaping how private operators will address the market for mitigation; instead, we have Natural England becoming a monopoly supplier of mitigations in a drive to nationalise nature and, in so doing, potentially drive out private initiative.

In an earlier group, I touched very briefly on the distinction between permitting and licensing. In my view, licensing is the way to go, because it prevents the derivative secondary markets that enrich the speculators at the expense of delivering the outcome. We cannot afford to create by way of permitting a new milk quota disaster—for those with long memories—where the mitigation industry just became a collateralised asset class that had everything to do with speculation and nothing to do with nature recovery.

That is not an argument against private involvement, but it is an argument for channelling and regulating a fast-developing industry where we have global leadership, the encouragement of which will enrich our economy. We just need to avoid the Wild West I have seen emerging among some chancers who are taking the money and spending it on Ferraris rather than laying it down to provide mitigations for the entire liability period.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Cromwell and Lord Fuller

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- 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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Cromwell and Lord Fuller

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Cromwell and Lord Fuller

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.