Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Baroness Coffey

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, on this group of amendments I feel as if I am on my own. I agree absolutely that SUDS, or sustainable urban drainage systems, can play a wonderful role for smaller-style developments—for ones and twos, miles away from the mains in rural areas, they are obviously the way to go and oftentimes they are the only way to go—but I cannot see for the life of me how promoting SUDS and accepting these amendments will be proportionate when we are talking not just about connecting 10 or 15 homes but building 1.5 million. We will never solve the housing problem by connecting 1.5 million homes to SUDS. We have to connect them to the mains; it is the only way forward.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

That is what Schedule 3 does.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

But I am concerned, listening to this, because we will be letting the water undertakers—the sewage firms—off the hook if we are not careful. I say to my noble friend that I have looked carefully at the amendments. This whole Bill is about speeding up development; we have to get these homes going. It seems to me that we are potentially having a perverse incentive in allowing the sewage treatment firms to have a veto over new development.

The sewage treatment works and the operators—the water undertakers—are going to be the tail that wags the dog. If they say, “We haven’t got enough capacity, therefore you can’t connect”, no new homes will be built at all. I am really concerned about this. I went to the world heritage site at Iona in Scotland and its sewage treatment works were at capacity. It ended up with the visitor centre being forced to have its own package system that drained straight through the public areas, making it worse. In Norfolk, Anglian Water is saying that its sewage treatment plants are at capacity and it cannot contemplate any new homes. It is the blocker: 40,000 new homes in the greater Norwich area, as well as other areas, are now at risk. So far, so much for speeding development. This is going to slow it down, because it gives them a get-out—a perverse incentive not to invest in what they should be doing, while taking the money from business rates and so forth.

In aggregate, we are going to end up with more polluting package systems rather than connecting. That is no good for places such as Poringland, in my own area, where there is clay and the drainage is really poor. This is really important because by promoting a multiplicity of much smaller package systems, rather than incentivising the main sewerage providers to invest, we are going to avoid scale—and we need the larger, better-structured sewage treatment works brought up to scratch, because it is only then that they would address the phosphate problem. Phosphate is very difficult to do in a package system because there are harsh chemicals, so you have to wear face masks, gloves and all the health and safety paraphernalia. It all has to be carefully handled. This is where we get the economy of scale, which is what we should be encouraging.

Another point is that if we are to allow the sewage companies to say, “We think we’re full now, so you can’t have any more”, we will end up with more small package schemes. There is the smell. They are also unreliable and expensive to maintain. It is difficult to get them adopted.

I am really concerned about Amendment 198. I do not want to put the black spot on it entirely, but it needs to be improved. We would end up with a perverse situation in which there was a lack of capacity and we incentivised the sewage treatment companies and water companies to take it easy, rather than go the extra mile. This is not some theoretical risk. In places in Norfolk such as Heacham, Docking, Snettisham, Horsford, Brancaster and the entirety of the greater Norwich area, Anglian Water is holding up the delivery of tens of thousands of houses.

This is an infrastructure Bill, so there would be unintended consequences. While the amendment is well meaning—I accept everything the noble Baroness said about what is in the Water Act, and I accept that for smaller schemes this is it—if we are to have an infrastructure Bill, we need to remove the excuses for the sewage treatment companies and the water undertakings not to invest in that most basic infrastructure. It is as if we are going back to the days before Chamberlain in Birmingham and Bazalgette here on the Embankment in London. We spent ages on the Water Bill, and there is widespread concern about sewage discharge, but sewage discharges will be solved only if we hold the water companies’ feet to the flames and get them to invest. It is a real problem if they just say, “Well, it’s a bit difficult. We’re not going to invest, and therefore you can’t build houses and can’t get the economy moving”.

In summary, we need to make sure that we take into account that SUDS has a role for smaller schemes, but we should not allow the pressure to be taken off the large companies for the big schemes—the schemes that will deliver the homes this nation needs by getting roofs over people’s heads. Otherwise, we will never meet the targets. As it is, in the Times yesterday there were questions about whether we will even get half way to delivering the housing targets, let alone all the way.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Baroness Coffey

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He is right that there is no way that Part 3 could have been crafted by anyone in Defra. It has absolutely been done by the local government department. That shows in almost every square inch of what we read.

I was asked to table Amendment 173A by the CLA. It is about ring-fencing the nature restoration levy. The risk at the moment is that the nature ring-fence applies only to the expenditure of levy income by Natural England. If funds are transferred away from Natural England or if the levy is collected and spent by another department or public body—both scenarios are actively permitted under this Bill—the ring-fence disappears. The overall design of Part 3 therefore allows levy cash to be collected by the Treasury and subsumed into wider government business as well as to be used to fund Natural England’s general functions. As compensation measures envisaged under EDPs are not legally required to be delivered, Part 3 creates a potentially substantial tax revenue stream for central government without any consultation or manifesto mandate if this ring-fence is not fixed.

I expect the Chancellor will not be reading my speech, but I can imagine that Treasury officials will be scrambling anywhere and everywhere to get money for a variety of purposes. It is as important for developers as it is for nature that this ring-fence is watertight and that nature compensation measures are funded and credible. If levy cash is instead appropriated for different purposes, the lack of funding for nature compensation would be a material consideration in planning that would allow the refusal of planning permissions. It is well known that hundreds of millions—billions—of pounds were collected under the apprenticeship levy and never applied to apprenticeships. We have to be mindful of the risks that could happen with this levy and whether nature will truly benefit.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I have spoken about the lifetime of the EDP and the enforceability of measures, but now we get to the price to be charged. I will amplify some of the points in Amendment 141. There are very large sums of money and long periods to be considered here. I do not really care whether MHCLG or Defra has drafted all this stuff as none of them really understands how to discount a cash flow. That is clear. If you are someone who has bought a house from the developer on the basis that the nutrient neutrality obligation has been washed away, hidden in the price of your new home is the market rate for mitigating a new dwelling-house, which in Norfolk is somewhere between £5,000 and £15,000. That is quite a sum.

In Committee, noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, multiplied present prices paid by the number of mitigations in a scheme, got to multi-million pound sums and wondered what would happen to the profit. Well, if only. The profit really depends on the annualised cost of providing the measures, not in one year but over 80 years discounted back to the present value, and none of this understanding is in the Bill.

I know as part of Norfolk Environmental Credits, which I founded on behalf of the local councils, that notwithstanding that we have sold more than £10 million- worth of mitigations, the balance sheet value is zero because of the way that international accounting rules require us to discount the revenues against the costs over the whole period for 80 years. There is no corporation tax to be paid or profit to be booked, only risks and liabilities to be hedged, keeping our fingers crossed that inflation and interest are kept on top of until the last few years, possibly as far away as 75 years’ time, when we will all be dead and the money nearly exhausted unless, of course, the provider has not got his sums right, in which case he would have gone bust years previously. None of this is contemplated by the Bill.

We discussed this in Committee, but there is no more detail here on Report. I think it would be sensible for the Bill to contemplate some benchmark accounting standards to value the upfront cash contributions against the tail liabilities on a consistent basis. The reason is that if we do that and get a level playing field, we will get private operators innovating and competing on the same basis to drive costs down, while still maintaining the obligations. The Bill is silent on all this and, as a result, we will never get the leading private markets in nature mitigation going, which will be a missed economic opportunity for our nation.

What consideration have the Government given to providing a consistency of accounting approach, coupled with the enforceability I spoke of on the previous group? The Bill is long on aspiration but conspicuously silent on the legal, contractual, commercial ways of achieving these objectives. Without commercial contractability, we are never going to get delivery. It is bound to fail unless these things are belatedly considered at Third Reading, but it is very late in the day.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 242B tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I strongly support the part of his amendment that inserts proposed new subsection (2A), but I am not so sure about proposed new subsection (2B)—(2B) or not (2B), that is the question he is proposing. Nevertheless, my suggestion to him is that I do not think anybody concerned about nature should then also try to limit growth; the two can be done hand in hand.

If Natural England or the Secretary of State for Housing need more resources or decide to subcontract to any designated person, that could be a private developer, which could come up with an EDP under the laws proposed by the Government. I am not saying that would be right, but people should be aware of the scope of where we are going. I would not support my noble friend if he re-tabled this amendment on Report to the full extent.

I think proposed new subsection (2A) is a very sensible approach on nutrient neutrality, the consideration of which is one of the issues that is particularly holding up aspects of development. This is the reason the Government have given more broadly. Of course, they have also latched on to a variety of things like jumping spiders and even ancient woodland, while still expressing concern for irreplaceable habitat. Nevertheless, we should have that very specific focus on what has been holding up the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised to deliver by the end of this Parliament. We should keep focused on where these potential EDPs need to be, and that will keep Natural England focused as well.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendment 346E in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 275A in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

I approached this group with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, ringing in my ears from yesterday’s Oral Questions. He boasted how the Government’s planning reforms would cut away the bureaucracy to get Britain building. Perhaps he was thinking about that other planning Bill announced by the Chancellor in August. He could not have been thinking about the one before us today, because given the combination of Part 3 of this Bill, the involvement of Natural England, and the astonishingly long preparation process for EDPs, starting in Clause 58 but going on as far as Clause 61, it is difficult to see how any mitigation proposal envisaged by Part 3 can be completed in the three and a half years from now —and that for a Government who have only three and three-quarter years to run.

Even if Part 3 stands part of the Bill at the point of assent, it will take until the next Parliament before someone gets the keys to a new home that has been subject to an EDP. Perhaps someone should tell the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, that Part 3 does not work, and it will not get Britain building or the economy growing. I should know, because I have been in this space for the last three and a half years as the instigator and a person of significant control in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, a company established and owned by all the planning authorities in Norfolk for the benefit of the local councils, taxpayers and economy. I know what I am talking about—this is another one of my specialist subjects.

I observe that government amendment 346E is a long one. I suppose we should be grateful that it recognises that the Bill as introduced was deficient, but it is incomplete. It articulates the problem and identifies the EDP participants, but it does not contemplate the earliest formative stages—the commercial, legal and contractual practicalities to put it into effect.

Let us think about the EDP processes that start in Clause 58. At the outset, it emerged on Monday that Natural England will report to the MHCLG Secretary of State, not Defra. That is quite a revelation. What technical knowledge exists in MHCLG to judge the veracity of the poor-science and unevidenced assertion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in today’s Telegraph, where he is reported to have said that “anti- growth” environment quangos are blocking developments on spurious grounds? How can MHCLG have the intellect and capacity to assess this spuriousness?

Our company in Norfolk aims to go beyond the desirability of cleaning up our rivers and devise commercial models that are legally robust and contractually certain, with a financial system that discounts the 80-year tail liabilities and makes the bridge between those who need to purchase mitigation and those who are prepared to provide it. I can tell noble Lords from personal practical experience how hard it is to devise a system to resuscitate the second-largest sector of our local economy—which has been placed in suspended animation for the past three and a half years—to provide the much-needed homes, affordable-homes infrastructure and mitigation in an area two-thirds of the size of our county.

My insight is that, before the provisions envisaged by this amendment are engaged, there are some fundamental principles to be established first. They should be set in statute, but they are not. It is envisaged that the EDPs will issue permits or licences. It is a critical point. A permit is something that is purchased and bought and has asset value. Noble Lords with long memories will remember the last time the state tried to introduce such permits to solve a problem: it created the madness of the milk quota system. By contrast, a local authority issuing licences provides for the point at which the mitigation is no longer required because, say, the local sewage treatment plant has been upgraded. Then the licence can be surrendered and issued again, with that second slice of revenue returned to the taxpayer.

At the drop-in session last week, Natural England’s representatives had blank faces when I asked them what they planned to sell to developers—permits or licences. They had not a clue. That illustrates the intellectual hole in that organisation. The risk of the permit approach is that, once issued to the builder of a new home, the nutrient neutrality permit is attached to that home and goes with the conveyance. That permit will have cost somewhere between £5,000 and £15,000. That is a pretty powerful incentive for the home owner to sell it on to someone else, so we find ourselves, as with milk quotas, sleepwalking into creating markets for tradeable assets, secondary markets, derivatives and everything else that history tells us happens when the state gets into the permitting business. The taxpayer misses out: that is the lesson from the milk quota fiasco.

By contrast, a licence is never owned by the developer or the landowner; it does not exist as an asset; contractually, it is tied to the property; and it can only be surrendered back to that property. The perverse incentive to sell it on and create secondary markets falls away. That is what we should be doing, but none of this fundamental design principle or parameter is contemplated by either Amendment 346E or the Bill.

Let us move on and think about the longevity of an EDP. It is proposed that an EDP lasts for 10 years—an assertion restated in the letter to noble Lords this morning, for which I thank the Ministers. But the tail liabilities are 80 years for nutrient neutrality and 30 years for biodiversity net gain, so I question whether a local planning authority can issue a permission if they are not sure what will happen between year 11 and year 80. I do not believe they can legally issue the permission. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 94B regarding permission for energy substations on higher quality agricultural land, I will also speak to Amendment 94A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, which according to the Herald is pronounced “drum-lang”. The amendments reflect the concerns that I and my noble friends have about what is happening on higher quality agricultural land, which, as we have heard eloquently described, is critical to food security.

My noble friend’s amendment reflects quite a lot of the concerns expressed in the House of Commons. I am thinking of my right honourable friend Wendy Morton, my honourable friends Sarah Bool and Mike Wood, and a number of other people who have spoken in debates in the House of Commons who are concerned for a couple of reasons about why battery energy storage systems seem to be not exploding —well, some of them are—but certainly expanding.

There is an important point to understand. We have seen, progressively, the previous Administration and this Government trying to get a grip on managing energy production and to get a proper strategy going. Meanwhile, in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, the proposal is that we need about 27 gigawatts by 2030, 29 gigawatts by 2035, and a broader estimate—although the Government have not set a formal target—of 50 gigawatts by 2050. But where are we right now?

Figures from a paper from RenewableUK published in December 2024 suggested that there were 5 gigawatts of total operational capacity and 127 gigawatts in the pipeline. You do not need an A-level in maths to add up and find that that comes to 132 gigawatts. Of those, I think it is fair to say that 40 gigawatts have already been consented, 30 gigawatts are in the planning process and a further 48 gigawatts are being developed to go into the planning system.

My concern and that of my honourable friends and right honourable friends in the other place is that, in our process, we have already approved pretty much all that has been wanted by our energy operator. So why is it that, in effect, we seem to be encouraging even more to come through?

I am conscious that not every application will necessarily produce the outcome that is desired—we have seen that with other things—but, frankly, for those who have got the planning consent, we should make sure that they deliver what they say they are going to do. We should do that instead of, yet again, building up, and potentially blocking, land being used for food production to perhaps become an area for battery energy storage in the future, when we will have already achieved our outcome.

We discussed a lot about safety earlier; the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, spoke to that. He spoke comprehensively, but I point out to him there have been some instances where, for example, chemical interactions meant that hydrofluoric acid was produced. I did my PhD in chemistry a long time ago, but HF is one of the chemicals that I used. I can honestly say that, if you get it on your skin, although you will not realise it for a couple of days, your bones are basically crumbling right inside your skeleton. If you get it in your eyes, it is game over, frankly. On a very serious note, it is fair to say that there are significant risks. While the HSE has been cited as having a framework in place and similar, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, referred to the Defra consultation about bringing these regimes into the EPR. It was published only last week. This is no criticism of the Minister, but what is noteworthy is that it said—I am quoting word for word—that

“it is not the role of the planning system to regulate fire risk and there is limited provision through the planning scheme to ensure that measures are maintained”.

I am sorry, but one of the key features of the planning system is to consider fire and fire risk and the like, so it will be worth the Minister looking at that element again; I am sure his officials will be keen to do so as well. We need to make sure that these things are safe. I shall give way.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I am reminded to reprise what the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said earlier about the need to have pre-scrutiny and the fact that a national organisation, the HSE, was the competent body. As my noble friend has been speaking, I have been reminded that it is for local organisations, the local fire authority and the local planning authority to make those determinations. National bodies such as the HSE do not have the capacity or the local knowledge to comment appropriately.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I think that is right. The HSE, on its own website, refers to the fact that it cannot comment on every application and, in effect, needs to be proactively contacted only if there is considered to be a major risk.

I am also conscious that the River Test is considered by my honourable friend Caroline Nokes to be under threat. For people who are interested in these things, I commend the speech of my right honourable friend Sir Alec Shelbrooke, who talked about dendrites. It was a very knowledgeable, well-researched speech about fire risk, including thermal runaway and the like.

Coming back to the fundamental proposal of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, he specifically asked me to talk about safety. There is a concern about overdevelopment and the loss of food for agricultural production. We will keep coming back to this on this side of the House, recognising the importance of food security alongside the other elements of national security.

On the amendment that I have tabled, perhaps I should declare an interest as this is about a subject that I have referred to a few times before: energy substations. Again, I am worried. There is an element here of thinking about where we do energy generation or other aspects of interconnection. Frankly, if the Government think the only way they can get these things done is by ripping apart environmental protection law and reducing food production land, they should not connect at those areas that already have these environmental designations or are key producers of food in this country.

My amendment refers specifically to 1, 2 or 3. I am conscious that the best and most versatile land is traditionally grades 1, 2 and 3a. However, Defra, through Natural England, does not publish where grades 3a and 3b are, because apparently that is too difficult to do, as it requires individual local site surveys on determining whether a particular field is grade 3a or 3b, so for comprehensiveness I have put in grades 1, 2 and 3.

However, as my noble friend Lord Fuller has pointed out, there is an element here about the fact that, frankly, a lot of this stuff was—in effect, with a light touch—reconsidered only in 2010. Fundamental parts of our land have not been assessed in terms of their contribution towards food production or food security for probably the best part of 40 to 50 years. As a consequence, recognising the targets set by the Government and the challenges that we face, I am conscious of the land use framework. Admittedly, I did a draft of that nearly three years ago, and I am sure everyone is frustrated that we still have not seen it yet. One of the challenges is this competing element of what we do with the land that we have.

Let us be straightforward about this: once agricultural land is gone, it is gone for good. I am not blaming farmers or landowners, who, candidly, the policies of the last 12 months have given even more reason to get a secured income on the basis of the value or use of their land. One of the foibles, in a way, of doing things such as leasing out land for solar is that it does not adjust in terms of the agricultural elements of inheritance tax. However, when farmers can get a guaranteed income for a proportion of their land, while other things are so uncertain, I do not blame them for wanting to make that choice.

My honourable friends—apologies, I am still earning about this place; I should have said my noble friends—have eloquently put some of the issues around solar. There definitely has to be a place for solar across our country, but one final point that I want to make on battery energy systems is that we really need to target where they are going to be. There is no point in having batteries in parts of the country that are nowhere near the grid or near where most of the energy is going to be used. That is why I have proposed the amendments I have today.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Fuller and Baroness Coffey

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is one of the most important parts of this legislation, and I am very conscious of the Labour Party’s manifesto and its success in the election last year. However, at the same time, this is the same Government who want to increase the employment rate to 80%, which has not been achieved in a very long time. If we go back in history, we see that the Blair-Brown Government did not make changes to go to zero or day-one rights in the same way. Yes, they changed it from two years to one year. The coalition Government later changed it back to two years.

Yet we are now seeing—as has already been pointed out elegantly by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in response to some of the comments raised on the Government Benches—that this is the Government’s own impact assessment. If we look at the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment of these proposals, we see that it gives a very strong red rating on this element and suggests that, basically, there is no evidence that they are in any way needed.

There are aspects here of “What is the problem that the Government is trying to address?”. Lewis Silkin solicitors point out that if the only changes to be made were those referred to and we were still to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy read out, the different approaches on fair dismissal in the tribunal, the Government could just put forward a statutory instrument based on the existing power of the 1996 Act. However, they have not done so in the Bill; they are seeking to go much further in a variety of ways in Schedule 3. That is why I share the concerns of many other noble Lords who are worried about the unintended consequences. Nobody can believe that a Labour Government would want to see unemployment rise or more people on benefits, or not tackle the challenge of people not in education, employment or training—

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Or the most vulnerable.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Or the most vulnerable—and we can just keep going.

However, on whether people take cases to the employment tribunal, as has been referred to, we are not going to debate Part 5 tonight, but in this same Bill, where we have to consider a lot of these things in the round, the Government are proposing to give an unlimited amount of money to somebody to get legal aid or legal support so that they can go to tribunal. In fact, they are going further and saying that the Secretary of State or somebody they appoint can go to court on their behalf. In that case, in Part 5, we are talking about people who have not even started work.

So, rolling it back, on some of the concerns about which noble Lords on the Government Benches are suggesting, “Don’t worry about it, this isn’t going to happen”, actually, the entire Bill is opening that. That is why I hope the Government do not just listen to the real concerns of noble Lords in this House; they should consider their own impact assessment and the representations of all the business organisations that think that this is just wrong.

I support the amendments. There are a variety of them about putting in the Bill a defined time for what should be considered a probationary period. We have already had a separate discussion about apprenticeships but, going further, one thing that surprises me is that in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, new Section 108A refers to:

“Employees who have not yet started work”.


You may think, “That’s very sensible. How can you have an unfair dismissal?” I have already referred to Part 5, coming somewhat later. Then there is a list in the Explanatory Notes. It is quite complicated—it tries to simplify it, but the legislation is complicated—but here we have one of the answers. A lot of the Bill is basically about trying to make sure that trade union membership goes up—that means more money going into the political fund and having to wait to opt out until the following January, for, in effect, finances. Indeed, paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 3, as a consequential amendment, says that, in effect, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, before you have even started work, will not apply if you are a member of a trade union. That is what is going on in this legislation. I will read it out:

“Omit section 154 (disapplication of qualifying period for unfair dismissal relating to union membership”.


There are a number of activities here; it goes further in the Explanatory Notes. They include if you are on strike—I do not quite understand how you could be on strike if you have not started work, but perhaps one is on strike if one is in a different job. There are already protections in the disapplication in existing law—it suggests people who are pregnant and similar. There are a variety of things here where there are already protections, but these are now being extended in different ways. Sometimes, the Government Back Benches may not all have necessarily read the full detail of the Bill.

To that end, I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in saying, “Let’s get rid of this clause and this schedule”. There is genuinely a way to start this again. There is still time for the Government to go away and do proper thinking—there is plenty to get through in this debate before we get to Report—to really narrow in on what the Government are trying to do, rather than, frankly, giving a blank cheque to a series of employment situations. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral—happy birthday to him, by the way—has already deemed this to be the unemployment Bill. I know those are not the consequences that the Government are seeking to address, but the experience and the petitioning of business organisations is very clear that that is what will happen.