Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

2: In the subsection, after “The purpose of this Act is to” insert “accelerate the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure by”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her amendment. Although I am seeking to amend her amendment, I echo the point she raised; it is very useful to have a debate about the principles. As the noble Baroness inferred, the scope of the Bill, which is set out at the beginning, is very dry. It does not give the sense of what this is all about. I commend her perseverance in tabling this amendment and allowing us to debate this. I know that the House seems to frown on these “in principle” debates at the beginning of Committee, as I found in trying to amend her amendment.

The noble Baroness is right to identify that there are a lot of tensions and challenges in taking forward this agenda. They are not easily solved, and sometimes we have to accept that there are going to be some trade-offs. My main concern is to speed up energy infrastructure to get us to clean power and, as rapidly as possible, to net zero. I agree that balancing the need for new homes and critical infrastructure with a planning consent process that commands public confidence and supports nature recovery is absolutely right. One of the big problems is that many well-meaning agencies, regulators, planning committees and campaigners have made it almost impossible to get the kind of investment we need in our energy infrastructure. Clearly, it would be perverse for me to say we should disregard the whole issue of nature preservation and environmental issues in the charge for net zero. Equally, many of those organisations concerned about the environment have impeded our real efforts to achieve net zero. Somehow, we have to find a way through.

My noble friend the Minister will be aware of media speculation that her department is about to announce some concessions in relation to Part 3. There are many Labour MPs committed to the growth agenda who would be concerned if Part 3 is watered down and so impedes progress on the growth agenda. Whatever agreement may have been reached with some of the environmental organisations about the actions they are going to take as a result of what the media are certainly talking about as an agreement, it is my experience of the Lords that it will always pocket concessions given at an early stage and come back for more. Discussion of Part 3 is going to be very important. Many Labour MPs will be taking a close interest in the Government’s continued commitment to the growth agenda.

I do not need to say much more about the issues of energy infrastructure. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee in 2024 concluded that many planned renewable energy projects were hampered by persistent problems accessing the electricity grid. National Grid wants to spend £30 billion over the next few years to upgrade our electricity network, and it needs to have confidence that the system is not going to obstruct it in the way that it has for so many years in the past.

It is not just energy. A recent report by Dr Mann Virdee for the Council on Geostrategy basically indicated that:

“Britain’s planning system is one of the primary barriers to efficient infrastructure delivery”.


It is characterised by an

“overly complex and burdensome framework. … Developers face extensive requirements for documentation. The planning application for the Lower Thames Crossing … ran to almost 360,000 pages”—

what a waste of energy. Does anyone think that this is anything other than a risk-averse box-ticking exercise by the myriad regulators we have, who seem to have lost any sense of common sense when it comes to consideration?

Even in the case of Sizewell C, which I have a great affection for—the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will know that—had an impact assessment that ran to 44,260 pages. You also then have to go through a justification process as well. This is all a complete waste of time and effort. We need to have confidence, as the Bill goes through, that we are going to see a really streamlined impact.

Following the OBR’s recent report, there has been a lot of comment about the public finances, but for me one of the most significant points in that report is its reference to this legislation and the housebuilding ambitions of the Government—which I applaud—and reckon that GDP will grow by 0.2% as a result of these planning reforms. In the current situation of the public finances, that is something to hold on to.

My amendment merely takes all of the characteristics that the noble Baroness put forward but puts growth at the top of the agenda. We need to send a very powerful message to the regulators, and to all the agencies that have obstructed progress in this country for so long, that they need to get that growth is the number one aim of this. I beg to move.

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a practising Silk in planning and environmental law, with a range of clients affected by planning regulation in various ways. I am a non-executive director of SAV Group, a property developer, and of Crossman Special Projects, a land promoter. I am the author of the independent review into legal challenges against NSIPs, which I will speak more on later in these proceedings.

I like purpose clauses in legislation. They are helpful because, in time, the courts will have to interpret the provisions of what will become the Act in due course, and if we do not spell out what the purpose is then the courts will have to define that. Surely it is far better to have a degree of parliamentary control in specifying what the purposes are. If that is to be done—it is not essential, but it is certainly nice to have—I certainly cannot improve on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, as proposed to be amended by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Scott.

I have a degree of nervousness, however, about the Bill having its own purpose without there being an overall statutory purpose of planning, as is advocated by the Royal Town Planning Institute and proposed in Amendment 132 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I do not agree with all the wording of that, but that is not the point for today’s purposes.

The Bill, once enacted, will be part of the wider framework of planning Acts, of which there are many. If it has its own stated purpose but the purpose of planning is not stated, there is a risk of a potential mismatch. That could be remedied by having an overall purpose of planning, which would have a number of advantages. For example, in the context of the increased role of planning officers, they would have that guiding beacon, which may avoid undue pressure being placed on planning officers by elected members—something that does happen, and there is a risk that it may happen to a greater extent if some of the other provisions of the Bill find their way into law. I would advocate consideration of the RTPI proposal, as outlined in Amendment 132.

I emphatically agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the need for proportionality. We have to put an end to the days of environmental statements being delivered by vans. No one will read them apart from the people who paid huge fees to produce them and review them—I declare a kind of interest in that respect too, of course. The EIA process is largely intended to help the public understand the environmental effects—it is consultation and taking into account the fruits of the consultation. No member of the public is going to read a lorry full of documents; it is simply not going to happen. Proportionality would be hugely helpful in that respect. There are recent instances of DCO examining inspectors asking 2,000-plus questions. I am sure that was with the best of intentions, but if we aim for perfection, we will not achieve anything.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, from the noble Lord’s experience, does he think it possible to legislate for regulators to use their common sense?

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I tried with my proportionality clause, which we will come to later in the proceedings. That is the best I can do so far; I am toying with tweaking it so that if it were to find its way on to the statute book, the Secretary of State would have the ability to publish statutory guidance on how to give effect to it. But, to echo what the noble Lord said before, if proportionality was spelled out in neon lights in legislation, it would send a message to everybody—consultees, consultants, applicants, decision-makers, the courts and the public—that less can be more. To my mind, that is a fundamental way of furthering the objectives of the Bill.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

The main thing was to make sure we had spoken to both the industry and the public sector, and more widely to bodies such as the RTPI and the TCPA, to make sure that we got their views on how the package we are putting together could best deliver the acceleration of the planning system we want to see, and for that to feed into the growth we all want. I feel fairly optimistic that we have the right combination.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in asking your Lordships to agree, I will withdraw my amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I thank my noble friend for an excellent winding-up; she covered the ground comprehensively. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, because it has been a real service to allow us—

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

Sorry, it is for the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to deal with Amendment 3 first.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) withdrawn.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for interfering before she withdrew her amendment to my amendment. I will now withdraw my amendment to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.

It has been a really good debate in which we have fleshed out some of the key tensions contained in the Bill. We have to be realistic. It is easy to take all the principles that the noble Baroness mentioned and say that at the end of the day, they will all be fine, we will get on with infrastructure investment and building our 1.5 million homes and it is all going to be straightforward. We know it is not. In fact, there are real tensions here and some things will have to give. My argument is that the most important issue here, above all else, is to get the growth agenda going. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1) withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

8: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(4B) The Secretary of State must ensure that in each review—(a) maximum deadlines are set for statutory consultations to be completed for proposed developments which are classified as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects,(b) if no response is received from a statutory consultee within the period specified in paragraph (a), it must be taken to mean that the statutory consultee as consented to the proposal, and(c) benchmarking is published alongside the review to compare UK performance with other countries in relation to the cost and timing of developments classified as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects encompassed within the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide further detail about the review of national policy statements with the intention of improving the clarity and speed of the planning process.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to return to the previous debate, but there is a general view that the current arthritic planning and regulatory system is a barrier to efficient infrastructure delivery. In the previous debate I referred to the excellent report by Dr Mann Virdee for the Council on Geostrategy, which identified many of the problems. In essence, we have a system where doing nothing is safer than doing something, and where process has eclipsed purpose—that point was put across very well by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in our first debate.

Another signal of our problems is the cost of infrastructure investment. On projects such as rail and road, we have unacceptably high costs in comparison with comparable nations. HS2 was budgeted for £37.5 billion; it is now £110 billion. The Lower Thames Crossing was budgeted for £5.3 billion; it is now £9 billion. Hinkley Point C was budgeted for £18 billion; it is now £40 billion to £50 billion. There are many more examples. It is not all due to the planning and regulatory constraints, but they have certainly played their part.

I strongly welcome much of the Bill, particularly the intent to streamline the nationally significant infrastructure projects and the reduction of judicial review opportunities; I very much acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and his review on that. The Minister today sent us a letter setting out what further action will be taken in what I think is a very short space of time. I am also very interested in the Bill’s intent to scrap the specimen-by-specimen, site-by-site approach to protecting nature, and to replace it with the nature restoration fund.

I welcome the provisions on energy, partly because my old department wrote them and therefore I could not but applaud and welcome the work that DESNZ has done there. The provisions will make a real difference. The big question for us is: will this be sufficient?

From talking to developers, it is clear that they will have to navigate relevant national policy statements, the DCO regime, the EIAs, the dozens of secondary licences and consents from other regulators, judicial reviews, and the various tiers of local authorities that will be involved. Indeed, in nuclear development, we have a parallel justification process, which is lengthy and expensive. I am very hopeful that the current task force looking at nuclear regulation will come forward with recommendations on whether we can avoid that duplication.

We will come on to Part 3 at some point in September. But there are some real questions about whether EDPs can deliver for major infrastructure projects. I clearly see the benefits where you have lots of housing developments in a particular area. But there are some issues around major infrastructure developments. As Catherine Howard, head of planning at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, has written, there is a risk that developers will need to twin-track the EDP process by also going through the traditional habitats assessment regime because an EDP was not in place in time for the consent application. Clearly, that is going to be a real problem for developers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, and I understand her expertise in these matters. If she still has concerns, I am happy to have another conversation with her.

Amendment 16 would require the environmental principles policy statement to be considered in the development of national policy statements. The environmental principles policy statement is a statutory document that aids policymakers in how to interpret and proportionately apply the five environmental principles. Policymakers are assisted in assessing the environmental impact of policy, but this is not a replication of the environmental impact assessment process. The principles are not rules and do not dictate policy outcomes. Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when developing policy, including NPSs. This is a matter of legal compliance and is embedded in the policy-making process.

Furthermore, national policy statements are also required by statute to be accompanied by an appraisal of sustainability which incorporates the sustainability appraisal as well as the strategic environmental assessment and ensures that environmental considerations are fully integrated. A habitat regulation assessment must be undertaken for a national policy statement to comply with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The preparation of an assessment of sustainability is a comprehensive process and includes an examination of the likely environmental effects of designating a national policy statement and the reasonable alternatives to a national policy statement. It also requires the Government to set out measures to mitigate any significant negative effects identified and any enhancement measures.

The assessment of sustainability is an iterative process done in conjunction with the updating of a national policy statement. For example, I encourage Members to read the assessment of sustainability that was published alongside the National Networks National Policy Statement, which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will already have done. It sets out a clear methodology of all the above and the environmental principles considered when developing the policy and potential alternatives.

I know that has been quite a long explanation, but I felt that the detailed nature of the amendments warranted going into some detail. For those reasons, I do not believe that a separate written assessment within each national policy statement is necessary.

I turn to some of the points raised by other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Hunt referred to the capability and capacity of Natural England. That issue has been raised many times—it was raised in the other place and has been raised again here—and we will come to it when we start to debate Part 3 of the Bill.

I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, meant the building safety regulator. I was not quite sure which regulator he was talking about but am happy to answer any questions about that. We have done significant work with the building safety regulator to try to speed up the process. We have increased its resources and changed the chief executive. Things are moving much more quickly already, and the development industry is already seeing a change.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, spoke about the precautionary principle. We have already had discussions about that today. We have to look out for the proportionate use of precautionary principles without going over the top and gold-plating everything, which I am afraid has been too much of a feature of the planning system in the past.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contribution to the debate. With all that said, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I thought she gave a very comprehensive and helpful response, and obviously I will withdraw my amendment.

It seemed to me that there were a number of threads, but a particular one is the relationship between what the legislation is seeking to achieve, the role of regulators and planners and the interface with the democratic process. The noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock, had some important points to raise here. In the end, we have collectively created—and Parliament is guilty of this—a whole panoply of quangos and regulators, and I suspect that those who have been Ministers are all guilty of that. Some of that seems to be entirely justified; for instance, you want the Office for Nuclear Regulation to be robust and independent. As a Health Minister, far too many years ago, I was part of the team that created independent reconfiguration panels because Ministers were not able to take decisions on the closure of hospitals as it was all too difficult, so sometimes there is a justification for offshoring. But I agree that we have gone too far and that we need to draw a distinction between the independence of regulators in making judgments and our role as parliamentarians and as Ministers in being tough about their performance, which is what lies behind my amendment.

I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, means about the issue, particularly in her patch, where a number of different NCOs go through under different NSIP regimes—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, could talk about cumulative impacts, which I understand—where regulators seem unable to work together, and the box ticking and the judgments they make mean that a collaborative enterprise becomes very difficult. I suspect that is what the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, was talking about in the East End. He, with a fantastic track record in doing this, has a scheme that is partly about improved NHS primary care provision, with housing attached and maybe even commercial development. We are dealing with a host of different bodies, all of which deal with these things in a compartmentalised way, and somehow we have to get through it.

This is partly about the work that the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is doing on the relationship between the proportionate and precautionary principles, and it is also partly about making sure—as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said—that the new system we introduce asks whether EDPs fit with major infrastructure projects.

Parliamentary oversight, in one way or another, is one way we can overcome some of the barriers, and I have later amendments that put forward some ideas about that. If the democratic process can legitimise the speed-up of what we seek to do, that would be a very helpful move forward. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak particularly to my Amendment 46A, which is a good example of trying to knit the Bill together. We are trying to speed up aspects of planning decisions on infrastructure, yet also—I will not go heavily into Part 3—create environmental improvement.

This is quite a simple, straightforward amendment. I am very grateful for the counsel of Alexa Culver, with whom I have been engaging through LinkedIn. She is counsel at RSK and is doing a very good job of seeing how this is coming together. In essence, in the Bill as it stands, Natural England is tasked with creating this environmental delivery plan—I am concerned about certain aspects of Part 3—which will hopefully, to paraphrase, improve the environment. That document will be created and approved by the Secretary of State for Defra to make sure that we see improvements.

Therefore, for me it is exceptionally logical that whenever a Secretary of State in another department makes a decision on NSIPs and considers where the national policy statement has effect, they should also, in effect, consider the environmental delivery plan as it is. Under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State already has to consider national policy statements, marine policy documents if relevant, other aspects regarding local impacts and

“any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are … important”.

That is absolutely critical. In all the changes, particularly in Part 3, the Government are saying that they can have the best of both by doing this. My amendment would make certain that they have to consider it and that it will actually get delivered. That is why I have tabled it at this stage of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on his Amendment 46. On Amendment 46A, I would be very surprised if the Secretary of State did not take account of EDPs. From the provision that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, read out, the Secretary of State clearly has the power to do so.

On Amendment 46, we partly return to the role of regulators. There is a perverse output of regulators making it difficult to achieve net-zero targets, which I find very difficult. Some regulators find it difficult to go wider than the very narrow remit that they seem to work under. One of the questions to the Government is: do they really think it will make a difference? It is easy to make fun of bats or acoustic fish deterrents, but it is fair to ask whether, as a result of this legislation, we will see an end to the ludicrous behaviour of regulators, which has cost so much money, delayed projects by so much time and, as we know, achieved absolutely zilch for conservation or nature preservation. Ultimately, that is the test.

It seems that the regulators do not come under enough challenge on their performance. Somehow, we need to put some mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that the regulators come under the microscope much more on how they behave and that they are held accountable. That is why the amendment is very well judged.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will chiefly offer support to Amendment 46A from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

In response to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who said that of course the Government would not do this, I am afraid that we hear that very often in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord may be speaking for his own Government, but we are making law for potential future Governments, and we cannot know how they will behave. That is a reason to put Amendment 46A in the Bill.

I respond to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Hunt, with a little reminder that we are one of the most nature-depleted corners of this battered planet. If our regulators have not succeeded in doing the job they should have done in protecting nature, the answer is not to take away more power from the regulators. By all means, make them work better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, we will undoubtedly discuss this at great length in relation to Part 3, but the Bill currently takes away an enormous amount of protection for nature, which is a huge problem.

In talking about Amendments 46 and 46A, I will refer to Defra’s own words from a blog post in 2025 that, we can assume, represents the Government’s view. It starts with a statement with which I can only agree:

“Nature is the bedrock of our entire way of life”.


As I often put it, the economy is a complete subset of the environment; none of the economy exists without a healthy environment. That blog seeks to defend the nature restoration fund, the environment delivery plans and all the other steps that this Government are introducing. You might say that the blog post is a little too vehement for its own good and that its tone sounds extremely defensive. None the less, we can all think of examples of where the Government have, on the one hand, done something for nature, but, on the other, done enormous damage with other policies.

One of the obvious examples that comes to mind here is peat. Peatland is terribly important for nature and for climate. Large amounts of money are spent on restoring peatlands. We also have continued use of the land for driven grouse shooting and the burning of large amounts of peat causing great damage—and continual horticultural use of peat. So we have the Government trying to expensively restore something while continuing to allow the destruction of it. That is why this needs to be in the Bill. I could give many more examples, but given the hour I will not, of where the Government are, in essence, facing in two directions at once and nature is torn down the middle as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

47: Clause 12, page 18, line 10, leave out subsection (2)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the requirement for all planning appeals to be considered at a hearing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we come to another interesting clause. In essence, I am trying to find ways to identify those infrastructure developments that are of critical national importance to see whether there is a way in which we can streamline the process of approvals that they have to go through. Also, in picking up the points from the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pinnock, about the need for democratic legitimacy, I am seeing whether we can use parliamentary processes to help.

I am moving Amendment 47 and speaking to Amendments 48, 49, 52, 53 and 65. The two substantive amendments are Amendments 52 and 65. I have two on judicial review which, because of the mystique of groupings for the first day, should really be grouped with a number of other JR amendments that we will come to later, so I will be brief in speaking on those.

My Amendment 52, in essence, creates a short, abridged parliamentary process to confirm Ministers’ decisions to give development consent for infrastructure projects as a critical national priority. Apparently, until the late 1990s, we had a system of provisional order confirmation Bills, whereby Parliament could confirm orders made by UK Ministers for various proposals, including infrastructure projects. There are many of these on the statute book so it is, in fact, a tried and tested approach that we could use for some projects where we need to speed up delivery but we need to have parliamentary approval as well.

This kind of approach, using a development consent order confirmation Bill, could take only four to six months to go through Parliament, which is nothing like the complexity of the hybrid Bill. We have seen that with HS2, which ultimately failed to satisfy anybody and built in huge delays. We are where we are with HS2. Having said that, the station being built in Birmingham looks pretty good; we can only hope that, one day, a train is actually able to arrive there.

The point about this amendment is to give Parliament a vote. I have very much accepted this point about the need for Parliament to have a say in some of these matters. In a sense, this is another trade-off; I am saying that some projects need to be dealt with in a special way—nationally, by being taken by Ministers, by going through the necessary procedures to ensure that they are appropriate and in being given legitimacy by parliamentary vote. It would give businesses and developers much greater certainty about investment decisions and, as I have said, ensure that we have a proper democratic say in these very important decisions.

Amendment 53 is related to Amendment 52 and would repeal Section 150 of the Planning Act 2008. I well recall our debates on that regime, because I was a Minister involved in it. The NSIP regime was designed with the intention of being a one-stop shop for major infrastructure projects, in terms of the consents required. However, the effect of Section 150 of the 2008 Act has been to stop development consent orders from being as much of a one-stop shop as they could be, because certain regulators have a veto on whether a DCO can roll consents into it that would otherwise have to be obtained separately from regulators. We have already debated the problem of having multiple regulators involved; they do not seem to be able to work together and co-ordinate their response.

I know that there was a debate on a similarly worded amendment that was proposed in the other place. The Government had some concerns about it but promised guidance on how to wrap up other consents in a DCO. However, the problem with that is that the regulators’ veto remains, which is why I argue that it should be moved.

My Amendment 65 can be seen in parallel: I seek to enable the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as critical national developments; establish an expert critical national developments task force to advise on each application; and provide that planning permission and any other regulatory consent for such development is deemed to be granted six months after the application is made, unless the Secretary of State issues a written objection within that period or extends the period. Of course, here, I am anticipating the response of my noble friend, because I noted that she was not very keen on my earlier amendment on timelines because different infrastructure developments have different requirements and probably different timelines. This amendment allows the Government to be able to sort of flex the timeline according to circumstances.

I would argue that, at the moment, Ministers lack a coherent mechanism to prioritise and accelerate delivery of critical infrastructure projects. The DCO regime has not really, in the end, delivered what we hoped it would when we took it through Parliament. I hesitate again to mention Sizewell C, but eight years from application to consent is just hopeless, and I must say that on Heathrow too. I support the third runway at Heathrow, because I think that, as the Government have said, this will take place within carbon budgets, but it is just an example of how decisions here can be stuck for decades, and we really have to move on from that.

The amendment I am proposing here would centralise accountability with the Secretary of State. I would align it to my earlier amendment in relation to parliamentary consent. It would bring consents under a single process, introduce a statutory determination deadline and de-risk major investments.

There is international precedent for it. The Canadian Government have also faced great delays in major national infrastructure from fragmented approval systems, environmental litigation and federal/provincial conflicts. Recently, the Parliament of Canada has produced a law with very much the same principles as my amendment, which allows the Canadian Cabinet to designate nation-building projects, as they are called, via Orders in Council.

I refer to my other three amendments. Amendment 47 seeks to remove the requirement for any planning appeals to be considered at an actual hearing. That, in my view, is a streamlining process.

Amendments 48 and 49 are around judicial reviews. I really welcome Clause 12(1), which would restrict judicial review appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court decides the application for permission to apply for judicial review is totally without merit. Now, I have already paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his review; this clause follows that review. We received a very helpful letter from my noble friend the Minister this morning, which gives details about how the Government are going to follow up; that is very welcome indeed, but I just want to probe whether we can go further.

Amendment 48 relates to the reviews of NPSs at least every five years, which I warmly welcome. I take my noble friend’s point about the issue with NPSs that have not been subject to a review and therefore could be considered to be out of date. I just want to make sure that judicial reviews are not used in a way which unreasonably might block progress, so my amendment would remove the possibility of JR in two circumstances: in between the five-yearly reviews, by repealing Section 13(2) of the Planning Act 2008, and in relation to any revisions to NPSs that are solely non-material or are reflective changes—in other words, reflective of published government policy change legislation or court judgments which the Bill is providing for.

I am a strong believer in the judicial review process. My background is mainly in the health service, and the fact is that NHS bodies are sometimes fast and loose with legislation and guidance, particularly when it comes to the outsourcing of services, changes of use, closures of hospitals and the like. There is no doubt that the judicial review process has been necessary to ensure proper transparency. My problem with judicial review is when it is used, essentially, to try to block progress—hence the amendment.

Amendment 49 would bring legal consistency to the Planning Act so that it is the High Court where applications for JR would be made. It is not a substantive change but it would make sure that, in any future event, civil procedure rules cannot be made to divert planning appeals to any court other than the High Court. There is already precedent in Section 63 of the listed buildings Act, which makes it clear that appeals are to be made to the High Court. I think that could flow across the Planning Act.

I hesitate to talk about judicial review when the noble Lord, Lord Banner, is present, but it would be good to have at least some debate as to whether, in the light of his review, we could go further. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 52 is of prime importance. Our planning system has become sclerotic. According to the Explanatory Notes that accompany the Bill, the time that it takes on average to secure a development consent order, or DCO, for major infrastructure projects has more than doubled in the last decade to more than four years. The development consent system is beset by objections and pleas and by judicial reviews, with several judicial reviews sometimes besetting the same project. The effects of the delay may be to cause an otherwise viable project to become uneconomic or unaffordable. Nowadays, such delays are often envisaged as a means of defeating a project. The conjunction of lawyers and protesters, which has given rise to a veritable industry, is a modern and unprecedented phenomenon.

Recently, I had good cause to consider such developments. I made a trip by car from London to Ilfracombe in Devon. I had intended to travel on the M4 motorway, which is a major arterial route. However, in consequence of its blockage, I was diverted, on the advice of the Google satnav system, on to the A303. In doing so, I remembered that 303 is the calibre of a rifle bullet. I had hoped to travel at the maximum legal speed, if not at the speed of a bullet. I was pleased to be able to do so until I was brought to a halt. I was then constrained to travel at a snail’s pace for a prolonged period, while passing an ancient stone monument on a single-lane road. I saw the ancient megaliths of Stonehenge on the brow of a hill, which were surrounded by a gathering of druids. I was reminded of their campaign, which has prevented the building of the Stonehenge bypass. They regret the presence of the road and resist the building of a bypass that would encroach upon Salisbury Plain. Some might regard their campaign as a worthy attempt to preserve the dignity of an ancient monument. However, there is another side to the story, which concerns the objections of residents in the neighbouring villages to the diversion of traffic on to their streets. They contend that their villages have an equal claim to preservation.

The legal wrangling has been interminable. The first grant of development consent for a bypass, in 2020, was quashed by the High Court in July 2021. It was then given the green light again, by the Department for Transport, which reissued a development consent two years later, in July 2023. The project was put on hold again, because of another series of judicial reviews, which were dismissed by the High Court in February 2024 and by the Court of Appeal in October 2024. Undeterred by those two defeats, the claimants asked the Supreme Court if they could appeal to it. On 29 January this year, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal, on the grounds that the challenge did not raise an arguable point of law.

However, this decision was immaterial since, within weeks of taking office last July, the Labour Government had scrapped the plans for a two-mile tunnel that would bypass the monument on the grounds that the cost of the project had become unaffordable. The decision to cancel the project was taken some three and a half years after the development consent order had been issued and after a full and detailed examination of all the issues. In this case, it might be said that the campaigners had won not by virtue of the strength of their case but by dint of endless legal chicanery and delay. However, the same recourse is available to many other parties who, for various reasons, wish to stand in the way of important development projects.

--- Later in debate ---

We agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I hope noble Lords will feel assured that we are taking action to tackle the issue head on. For those reasons, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole Committee would wish to thank my noble friend the Minister for her very comprehensive response, which has been replicated throughout today’s proceedings. I am very grateful to her for the attention that she has paid.

I cannot say that this set of amendments has enjoyed uniform support among your Lordships, but I hope they have provoked a debate. I welcome the Bill. It is definitely going in the right direction, but there are still some concerns that I and a number of colleagues have about whether it is really going to cut the cake in the end, hence we are looking at the issues about judicial review. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his comments. I take his point about compulsory purchase and property rights in particular.

We need to come to an end. I will of course consider this very carefully. We still need to look at whether there are some supercharging approaches we can take to the really important infrastructure developments we need, with the benefit of parliamentary scrutiny and legitimacy. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill, which I see as an essential foundation to building new homes and critical infra- structure. We simply cannot afford the current planning and regulatory system, which seems almost designed to stop growth and make it so expensive and damaging to our economy and basic living standards.

My main interest in the Bill is in Part 1, which will help speed up the building of new energy infrastructure, which I see as vital to achieving clean power by 2030. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that she supports much of the Bill, including the measures on energy. I noticed that she made no mention of clean power and net zero. Of course, the party opposite is in full retreat on this, despite the fact that it was Mrs Thatcher who said at the UN in November 1989:

“It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways”.


It was the noble Baroness, Lady May, moreover, who, as Prime Minister, legislated for net zero by 2050. But the party opposite is now in full retreat. It has turned its back on climate change and net zero and developed an unfathomable passion for fossil fuels, despite the volatile fossil fuel market being one of the major causes of our high energy prices.

Clean power by 2030 requires a huge upgrading of the country’s major energy infrastructure; on that, I think we are agreed. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee concluded in 2024 that many planned renewable energy projects were hampered by persistent problems accessing the electricity grid, including slow connections, limited capacity of local planning authorities and inappropriate planning regulations. Currently, companies are waiting up to 15 years to be connected to the grid. This is leaving very promising developments absolutely gridlocked.

The advice to government from NESO—the National Energy System Operator—was to increase new transition network infrastructure by 2030 at over twice the pace it was being delivered in the previous decade. That is why the Bill’s provisions are so welcome, in particular: the removal of the burdensome statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications; the grid’s connection queue reforms to move from “first come, first served” to a “first ready and needed, first connected” approach; the new funding mechanism for statutory consultees, which will, I hope, address the lack of capacity and resources; and the proposed bill discount scheme for people living closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure.

Part 3 is also relevant to infrastructure growth. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell: I fully accept that it would be perverse if net zero were achieved at the expense of our nature, farmland and general environment, but, as it currently stands, the Bill gives a huge amount of responsibility to Natural England and the other statutory bodies, which have shown no interest in considering the benefits of delivering development, have seen a hollowing out of scientific expertise over the years of austerity, and have no experience in delivering complex infrastructure strategies.

I can see our environmental development delivery plans—to deliver strategic compensation in relation to the habitats regime—working for a given area where you might have multiple housing developers, but I am worried about the extent to which they will work for major infrastructure developments. As Catherine Howard, the head of planning at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, wrote, there is a risk that developers would

“need to twin-track the EDP process with going through the traditional Habitats assessment”

regime because an EDP was not in place in time for the consent application. This is going to be hopeless for developers. I believe that the Secretary of State needs to have a call-in power in the event of this being stuck in this way.

With that important caveat, I welcome the Bill; I see it as a great foundation for growth. However, I hope that the Government will be willing to listen to some of the issues for major developers around infrastructure in relation to Part 3.

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

Absolutely. I totally agree with my noble friend; I am sure most people in this House do as well. We are in a period of heightened tensions. Anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate crime levels are at an all-time high. Flags, symbols and graffiti are all causing division and stoking fear locally, and now is the time to tackle this issue head on. The definition tries to ensure that it focuses on extremism that is founded in hatred, violence or intolerance, and which poses a threat to our rights and our freedoms. It does not matter where it comes from: we need to tackle it and try our best to stop it.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I too believe that this is very important. Clearly it is right that the Government look fully at the risk of extremism. I worry about the definition and some potential unintended consequences. I note the Minister said that organisations that felt they were unfairly affected had recourse to judicial review. Given that this Government have been chuntering about use of judicial review, I am glad to see that they now think that it has a positive benefit.

I want to ask the Minister about one point in the Statement issued by her department, which talks about this work complementing the Government’s updated Prevent guidance. I am puzzled by the guidance issued last year, which lists socialism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion on the Prevent list of terrorism warning signs. A section on the left wing goes on to say:

“Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause”.


I am not sure whether I call myself a socialist. Members of the Labour Party probably would not describe me as a socialist and my local branch definitely would not—it would find other ways to describe me. However, that seems to show some of the risks of Prevent making these quite alarming statements and, because of what Mr Gove has said, their maybe being translated into the extremism definition. I would be grateful if the Minister would at least look at how this relationship will operate.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

I certainly will undertake to do that. The sole purpose of bringing this under one umbrella is to ensure that all departments treat this with the same lens. They will have the same evidence- based methodology and the same basis for making decisions, and we will then ensure that that is across all departments. This is the method by which we will bring all that together so that all departments say the same thing and treat people equally.

Leasehold: Property Management Companies

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The Bill contains both a time limit and cost limit for the provision of information from freeholders to leaseholders when they are seeking to sell their properties. I do not know the exact circumstances of the case the noble and learned Baroness refers to, but action is being taken in this area.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that legislation in 2000 and 2004 abolished leasehold in Scotland. Given noble Lords’ concerns about the current Bill, why on earth can we not be more radical and abolish leasehold in England and Wales?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Following previous Questions I looked at the example of Scotland, which we do seek to learn from, but the circumstances there are significantly different. At the time, there were only some 9,000 long leasehold properties in Scotland, compared with around 5 million leasehold properties in England and Wales. The majority of Scottish leases had ground rents of only £2.50 per year, whereas the average ground rent in England is £300 per year. It is more complicated to take reform forward in England, but the Government are committed to doing this. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill will take important steps toward delivering commonhold as an alternative in future.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I am a non-smoker. I have never smoked. I have absolutely no intention of smoking. But I would point out to my noble friend on the Front Bench something on which I imagine he is well briefed. Local authorities already have the powers at their discretion to regulate smoking in licensed premises and on pavements outside pubs, bars and restaurants with exterior tables and seating. My noble friend who spoke earlier has been in local government, as have I. The powers are there already. In my judgment, it is for the local people to decide—not for some all-embracing Government above to dictate. There is no need for further central government legislation. The licence holder is already legally required to make sensible provision for seating where smoking is not permitted.

The noble Baroness who spoke earlier said, “Well it’s logical, if it’s banned internally then obviously you ban it externally”. May I suggest to the noble Baroness that external smoke is totally different? It dissipates far quicker outside than it does inside. Outside, it ends up becoming highly diluted and disappears into the atmosphere very quickly. Having said that, it is right that licence holders should remember to ask people to behave properly in the interests of those seating nearby, particularly children.

Frankly, this Bill should not be used as a back-door route to try to ban smoking in public places. We would be threatening pubs and cafés that, if they did not ban smoking outside their premises, they would be refused a licence. That would be thoroughly disproportionate.

As far as I know, my Government have no plan to ban outdoor smoking. It has rejected similar amendments in the past. Excessive regulation could even lead to some pub closures and job losses. This would be to no one’s benefit. Again, as a non-smoker, I find encouragement that the figures for people who smoke seem to go down every year. We should think back to what it was like in the 1970s. Would we have thought that the policies we have implemented would have achieved the current rate? Last year, 13.3% of the population were smoking; on the latest figures, this is down to 12.7%. So the reduction is there—it is happening—and certainly, to use this particular Bill to interfere with what local authorities want to do in their own area is, in my view, totally wrong.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. I am now caring for my mother and am a grandfather to very young grandchildren, so I have renewed my acquaintance with the problem, as he said, of seeking to go from A to B when there are so many obstacles in the way. His amendments go to the heart of the problem by recognising that pavements are for people to walk on.

I am also delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and other noble Lords in their amendment. I disagree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. First, I do think that the health gain from this measure would be considerable. We are behind the curve in reaching the smoke-free target. Secondly, I disagree with him about the dissipation of smoke. Anyone who has had to walk past pubs where people are smoking outside would say it does not dissipate quickly enough. Thirdly, I do not think it would harm the pub trade; I think it would enhance it because, frankly, going through a fog to get into a pub is not very attractive at all.

On a more general point, the noble Lord, Lord Young, made it clear that he saw this as a popular public measure. I totally agree. I was a member of the Cabinet committee which basically tore up our 2005 manifesto because it was not strong enough. The result of that very rare rebellion by a Cabinet committee led to the ban on smoking in public places. And it was proved right—it was very popular and very effective.

I also recall moving the amendment on banning smoking in cars where children are present. That was overwhelmingly popular. When it went back to the Commons, the Government agreed. So many of their own Back-Benchers supported it because they had had such a lot of strong messages.

I have no doubt whatever that this will be a very positive and popular measure. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say something positive about it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this may be the fourth occasion in the House on which I have debated pavement licensing. There is obviously a reason for that; we have not got the regulations quite right. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised in his amendment, there is a natural conflict between the use of the public highway as an extension of a licensed premises, restaurant or café, and the use of it by the public to get from A to B. I totally agree. At the very earliest iteration of these regulations about pavement licensing, both he and I proposed that barriers ought to be in place to restrict the use of the highway so there would be plenty of room for pedestrians and those in wheelchairs or pushing buggies to get through safely. I am still concerned that that regulation is not part of the licence for use of the public highway.

The second important issue is about smoke free. All I will say is this: it needs to be smoke free. This is a health issue. We need to take every opportunity we can to ensure that there are no opportunities for people who do not wish to inhale somebody else’s smoke to do so. I agree with all noble Lords—bar one—who have spoken on this issue.

Lastly, I will repeat the question that I have raised before. If we are permitting businesses to use the public highway, will the local authority that has to maintain the public highway have the right to require a rent for its use? This would enable continued good maintenance of pavements for people.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

198: After Clause 94, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to reduce health inequalities and improve well-being(1) For the purposes of this section “the general health and well-being objective” is the reduction of health inequalities and the improvement of well-being through the exercise of planning functions in relation to England.(2) A local planning authority must ensure that the development plan for their area includes policies designed to secure that the development and use of land contribute to the general health and well-being objective.(3) In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle and related approvals, a local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State must ensure the decision is consistent with achieving the general health and well-being objective.(4) In complying with this section, a local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State must have special regard to the desirability of—(a) ensuring that key destinations such as essential shops, schools, parks and open spaces, health facilities and public transport services are in safe and convenient proximity on foot to homes;(b) facilitating access to these key destinations and creating opportunities for everyone to be physically active by improving existing, and creating new, walking and cycling routes and networks;(c) increasing access to high-quality green infra-structure;(d) ensuring a supply of housing which is affordable to and meets the health, accessibility and well-being needs of people who live in the local planning authority's area.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would create a requirement for local planning authorities to include policies in their development plans which contribute to a new general health and well-being objective. It requires local planning authorities and the Secretary of State to ensure consistency with this objective when deciding whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle and related approvals, such as reserved matters.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on Monday we debated this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who is unavoidably detained. The amendment proposes a duty to reduce health inequalities and improve well-being through the exercise of planning functions. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his response, in which he put his faith in the National Planning Policy Framework, but I do not think that this goes far enough. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the three amendments about healthy homes in my name in this group: Amendments 191A, 191B and 286. I support other amendments in this group; in particular, Amendment 198, which, like these amendments, links health and housing, and much of what I will say is also very relevant to that amendment.

I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Blunkett and Lord Stunell, for adding their names, and more generally to noble Lords across your Lordships’ House who have supported these amendments. I am also very grateful to the TCPA, which has supported me with these amendments; there is also a considerable campaign of support for them outside which it has created, including among builders, developers and insurers, all of whom recognise that action is needed.

I am also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, with whom we have had two meetings, but sadly without any progress being made. I wait to hear what may be said later.

In describing these amendments, I will also explain why they are very different from the Government’s existing and planned policy. I make a point of this because the Government have consistently stated that these amendments are not necessary as they are already covered by existing or planned policy. However, these differences start with the recognition of the vital link between housing and health and well-being. They are intimately connected issues. Noble Lords will be very well aware of these connections and the problems—for example, of damp, cold, mould, air pollution, safety and more—when poor housing has caused deaths, illnesses and accidents. We need think only of the poor child in Rochdale who died from mould or the child in London who died from air pollution in their homes.

It is also important to remember to mention the mental health issues caused by poor, insecure, overcrowded housing and living in homes and neighbourhoods that are vulnerable to crime. I know that noble Lords debating the amendment of my noble friend Lady Willis will have much more to say about this, and particularly inequalities. It is the poorest people in the poorest neighbourhoods who are worst affected, and that is a very fitting topic for a levelling-up Bill.

Noble Lords will also be aware of the great strides earlier Governments made in understanding the relationship between health and housing and tackling them together, from Victorian times onwards—slum clearances over the ages, but also the great campaign of “Homes for Heroes” after the First World War. People recognised those important links, yet today, there is virtually nothing about health in planning and, if there is, it is about healthcare. The links between health, well-being and planning are simply not addressed. That is why Amendment 191A states:

“The Secretary of State must promote a comprehensive regulatory framework for planning and the built environment designed to secure … the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people of England, and ... healthy homes and neighbourhoods”.


This does three very important things. It places health and well-being firmly at the heart of planning for the built environment; stresses the links between an individual’s health and the neighbourhood in which they live; and provides a clear aim for the whole planning and regulatory system. All three are important.

I recognise that this is a substantial strategic change in the approach to planning and regulation which, if adopted, will have a positive impact on the quality of housing and neighbourhoods, should reduce the likelihood of new slums being created and truly help to level up. It will also have a positive financial benefit by reducing the massive cost of poor housing to, for example, the NHS. I will not labour this point, but it is in the many billions of pounds. The respected Building Research Establishment estimates that it is £135 billion over 30 years. Of course, there is all the human cost of poor housing and huge cost to other sectors of the economy. In summary, there is a real choice here between carrying on as before and making a determined effort to create good housing for the citizens of this country that is fit for the future.

I turn for a moment to standards and quality. I imagine that all noble Lords are well aware of the poor standard of some recent developments, mainly but not exclusively those created through permitted development rights. We can see that existing arrangements have not stopped that, and new policies will lack the teeth to make it happen. Amendment 191A refers to the Secretary of State being responsible for creating

“a system of standards that promotes and”,

importantly, “secures healthy homes”. The system of standards covers 11 areas, which are linked concerns about individuals and the community. They bring health and environment and health and security issues together. Importantly, in Amendment 191B, it is the Secretary of State who is held to account by Parliament for delivery, by the mechanisms in the amendments.

We are not writing the policy; we are making sure it is delivered everywhere. We set out those principles to be followed which need to be enshrined in law; we have deliberately left the Secretary of State with space to define the standards, which will obviously change over time, and the methods they use to deliver them. We are not trying to rewrite government policy here; we are trying to enact legislation.

Since Committee, the Government have proposed the extension of permitted development rights to embrace sites in countryside areas, farms, national parks and hotels. This makes these amendments even more necessary. We need the health and well-being focus, the coherence and the standards as a counterbalance: a free-for-all will not help the public or the economy. As the APPG on homelessness said even before that extension was proposed, PDR can provide extra needed housing, but it needs to be done well, which is why that cross-party group supports these amendments.

Let me touch on costs. I imagine that some noble Lords will be thinking, “Doesn’t this cost a great deal of money?” I am not talking about the difference between lower-cost and higher-cost houses, I am talking about the difference between lower-cost housing and housing that is simply not fit for purpose. The analogy I use is the MOT. The MOT dictates whether or not a car is fit to be on our roads. If we have such a test for our cars, we also need to ensure that our housing is fit to be on our streets.

I have so far talked about the extraordinary opportunity cost of not addressing these issues. If we do not address them, we are condemning a lot of people to poor housing. But let us look at it from the other side for a moment: from the point of view of opportunity, and homes for heroes, if you like. Who have these homes been built for? There is opportunity here if people have a secure home, a secure base from which to operate, space for children to do their homework, where they are not spending all their time worrying about repairs and everything else. This is about life chances. It is not just about housing affecting health and well-being; it affects people’s life chances in the long term.

These are powerful arguments, and I wait to hear how the Government are going to respond. However, I should say at this point that I expect to take this to a vote, because I want His Majesty’s Government to think again and engage with the arguments about health, well-being and standards. They have not done so thus far, but it is very important that they do. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 198 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, very much regrets that she is unable to be present, for unavoidable reasons, and has therefore asked me to speak to her amendment. In essence, it would ensure that the planning system is contributing to the levelling-up agenda by designing the places people need to thrive and contributing to a general health and well-being objective. Let me say here that I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, with his great experience, said. This amendment is entirely consistent with and complementary to his, and I am glad that he will press his to a Division.

I should say that my interest in this came from the particular issue of health inequality, but it is active travel on which I will focus. Subsection (4) of Amendment 198, to which local planning authorities or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State would have to have regard, emphasises some of the points the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is making:

“ensuring that key destinations such as essential shops, schools, parks and open spaces, health facilities and public transport services are in safe and convenient proximity on foot to homes … facilitating access to these key destinations and creating opportunities for everyone to be physically active by improving existing, and creating new, walking and cycling routes and networks … increasing access to high-quality green infrastructure … ensuring a supply of housing which is affordable … and meets”

health, accessibility and well-being needs. That is entirely consistent with what both the Government and the Opposition would think of when they talk of health and well-being.

Leasehold Properties: Managing Agents

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: leaseholders need that transparency to better understand what they are paying for and for it to be harder for landlords to hide any unreasonable charges. As I said, we are looking at it. We will bring forward legislation later in this Parliament.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on that very important point, does the Minister envisage that the outcome of this will be models to insist that agents set out information in a way that is very simple and easy to understand? Unless we have that, it will be so easy for agents to hide behind the jargon used in the industry about what exactly service charges cover.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

I do not understand what that means. They can work “positively” alongside the CCA as an associate member. The question is whether they should have a vote. I submit to the Government yet again the view that they should not have a vote and that the only people who should have a vote are the full members of the CCA. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, particularly about the district council situation. Noble Lords might recall that in Committee I raised the issue of Oxfordshire and Oxford City Council, of which I used to be a member, which would be a non-constituent member of the combined authority, but Oxford University could be invited to come in as a participating member under this thing, and that does not seem right.

The noble Lord also kindly mentioned my Amendment 51, which is related to my Amendment 53A, which we debated on Tuesday, albeit to a rather limited audience; the formal taking of the amendment comes up later. My Amendment 51 would retain the right of members of a combined authority to give their consent to a change in the membership of the combined authority. Currently, Clause 51, quite extraordinarily, takes that away from the members of a combined authority so that members of a current combined authority have no say whatever in whether the boundaries of that combined authority should be extended and a new member brought in, despite the consequences for the combined authority.

This takes us back to the West Midlands, I am afraid, because we know why this is being done. This is being done to gerrymander the boundaries of the West Midlands Combined Authority to give Andy Street, the Tory mayor, a chance of being re-elected next May, and the Minister tabled late amendments to make this easier. This is being done over 12 weeks. The cabinet paper to Warwickshire County Council, which I think was discussed this week, makes it clear that in order for this to be rushed through, it must undertake a governance review and publish a scheme with details of the proposed expanded area of the West Midlands Combined Authority and its membership, voting and other constitutional arrangements, functions and the way it would be funded. A public consultation also has to be undertaken—in August, essentially, because Ministers have told the county council that to meet the deadline for the May election an application must be submitted in early October. The paper to the council cabinet openly admits that this

“may require … urgent decisions being made during the process”;

in other words, the consultation is a sham because we know that the decision has already been made in the Minister’s department. So much is unknown, not least the financial consequences for Warwickshire. Indeed, what about the impact on the existing members of the combined authority, who have no say whatever in whether this should happen because of the Bill before us today?

On Tuesday, the Minister very kindly said that the Bill is a bottom-up process, but this decision has already been made. So why is her boss intensely engaged with the county council to persuade it to do it? Can she answer that question? Can she also tell me whether the MPs in Warwickshire have been consulted? One would have thought that when considering something as dramatic as putting Warwickshire into the West Midlands Combined Authority the Government might have asked all the MPs what they thought about it. I do not think that has happened.

I love Warwickshire. I live quite close to it, as the Minister knows. It is a delightful county. Do the people of Warwickshire really want to be absorbed into an urban combined authority? Do they really want a mayor situated in Birmingham to have such a key influence on their affairs? Indeed, the same could be said for Shropshire, where, again, I think Mayor Street seems to be very interested. I do not think so. I do not think the shire counties in the West Midlands want this, and we should change the Bill to make sure that it cannot happen without the consent of combined authority members as they are.

--- Later in debate ---

Any proposal to expand an area of a combined authority comes from the local area. It must make a strong case that doing so will deliver real benefits to the local area and include a public consultation within it. Before making regulations to change the area, the Secretary of State must consider that doing so is likely to lead to an improvement in the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all of those who live or work in the area, and have regard for securing effective and convenient local government, reflecting the identities and interests of local communities. This provision still requires the triple lock of consent: from the local area via the mayor and the submission to the Secretary of State, including a public consultation; the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government; and parliamentary approval for laying the legislation enacting any such changes.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make two points. The Minister said that this is not about gerrymandering. I suspect he would say that, wouldn’t he? I am a resident of Birmingham, and Birmingham City Council is a huge local authority—a member of the West Midlands Combined Authority. Do we not get any say at all in whether the boundaries should be extended to Warwickshire? Surely the current constituent authorities have a legitimate role in consenting to the boundaries being extended.

The second point is that the amendment I referred to, government Amendment 34, allows work to be done in relation to this in advance of Royal Assent—which is a highly unusual move, I suggest.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I simply remind the noble Lord, in answer to his first point, that there has to be a public consultation. That is when the views of all interested parties can be taken into account. Retaining the present arrangements, which I guess the noble Lord would like to do, could mean that the expansion of a combined authority—where the evidence shows that would be likely to improve outcomes across the proposed whole new area—could end up being vetoed by one existing constituent council if the combined authority’s local constitution requires unanimous agreement from its members on this matter. That could happen, irrespective of support from the potential new member, the mayor and the great majority of constituent councils.

I hope the noble Lord appreciates why these provisions are framed as they are. I know that he believes there is an underlying malign motive. Again, I emphatically repudiate that idea. The current regime acts as a barrier to the expansion of an existing combined authority, even when there is a clear economic rationale in favour of it. The Bill will make it less difficult for combined authorities to expand into more complete and stronger economic geographies. For that reason, I ask him not to press his amendment when it is reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 36 is designed to provide clarity over the future relationships, roles and responsibilities of elected mayors and police and crime commissioners. The number of elected regional mayors has grown in recent years, and the Government clearly want to create more. At the same time, it also appears that the Bill’s proposals will allow these mayors to take over, rather than run alongside, the role of PCCs. Is it the Government’s intention to gradually phase out the elected PCCs?

This matters, of course, because policing has never been under more scrutiny and public confidence in some forces is, unfortunately, at rock bottom. Although PCCs do not have operational control over local forces, being watchdogs rather than police chiefs, the hiring and firing of chief constables is among their powers. Some mayors would quite like those powers for themselves, so may seek a mandate to take them when they are next up for election. We know that the next PCC and mayoral elections are due in 2024—next year—and that there are already strong feelings in some areas as to who should have the job of holding the police to account.

Current legislation allows for a CCA mayor to apply to become the PCC, first, if the majority of their constituent councils agree and, secondly, following any consultation. The Bill removes those conditions, even the need to consult. Clearly, consultation should be essential for a change as big as this.

In Committee, the Minister said that

“councils do not deliver any of the services required by the PCC. That is the job of the local police. Therefore, there is no crossover in that way”.—[Official Report, 13/3/23; col. 1143.]

There was concern about that statement at the time. As my noble friend Lady Taylor and others said, this is simply not the case. Councils look at anti-social behaviour; they look at domestic abuse work with their police colleagues. They have issues related to local area policing. Councils set priorities with local policing teams and deliver services jointly to address these priorities. District councils have a community safety plan, a committee and a chair, with constant interaction between the PCC’s office and the councils, including the county council.

To say that there is no crossover between councils and PCCs is, we believe, a false argument to justify what is planned as a simple takeover of functions. I say this to make it clear that we support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach, Amendments 54 and 307A, which I understand are to be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I also assure my noble friend Lord Hunt that if he wishes to push his Amendment 53A to a vote, he will have our support.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hayman. My noble friend Lord Bach is addressing a memorial meeting in Leicestershire for the late chief constable with whom he worked very closely as police and crime commissioner.

To bring it back to my local patch, my concern is that Clause 59 means that the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority can become the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands Police whenever he wants, without consultation or an open debate about the consequences for the West Midlands. That is a local example of what my noble friend Lady Hayman has just described. I recognise that a mayor can become a police and crime commissioner if he or she has general support, as I think has happened in Manchester and West Yorkshire, but in the West Midlands that support has not been forthcoming. The local authorities did not agree to it.

We have got used to voting for a police and crime commissioner. As it happens, it has been for a Labour one each time—most recently in May 2021, on the very same day that we voted for a Conservative mayor. There is no suggestion that the two postholders cannot work well together. Both were elected. I do not understand what the argument for change is. What is the argument for essentially nullifying the result of an election if it does not seem to suit one party?

This is compounded by Amendment 307, which allows the West Midlands mayor to take on PCC powers on Royal Assent—this could happen in September. What is the rush? If the Government are determined to go ahead with this clause, surely it should be done in a seemly and orderly fashion?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment is really important for democratic overview of policing in a combined authority area. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has said, West Yorkshire already has a mayor and a non-elected police and crime commissioner, because the arrangement for West Yorkshire—sadly, in my view—was that the two roles would be combined. The elected Mayor of West Yorkshire is therefore also responsible as police and crime commissioner. The consequence of combining those two roles has been that the Mayor of West Yorkshire was able to appoint a police and crime commissioner for West Yorkshire.

The whole concept of police and crime commissioners was that there would be democratic accountability for the oversight of policing in a police service area. In West Yorkshire and other places, I think including Manchester, that democratic accountability has disappeared because the mayors in those places—I live in West Yorkshire so I know the situation well—have appointed people they know as police and crime commissioner.

That is no reflection on or criticism of the job that that individual does, but it is a criticism of the lack of democratic accountability. If the oversight of police and crime in a very large area—2.5 million people—is given to an appointed person and the electorate cannot vote them out of office, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. That is why Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is so important. The Government have gone in the wrong direction on this one. If we are to have police and crime commissioners, they need to be elected, as they are everywhere else in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No. I hate to bring up the West Midlands—I know the noble Lord opposite will be very pleased that I am—but the Mayor of the West Midlands has a choice: he can either agree to pursue the expansion to include Warwickshire, which has its own PCC, so he could no longer take the PCC role, or he can take the PCC role and therefore not Warwickshire. That is the reality of what we are doing. I hope I have explained that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I think that is right, because you cannot be PCC over two police forces; I fully understand that. What I would say is that if I were in Warwickshire, I would think, “At some point, they will merge West Midlands Police with Warwickshire”. That is just an option for the future, but the Minister is absolutely right about the fact that the mayor cannot oversee two forces.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I hope I have clarified that point. What happens in the future happens in the future; we are talking about this Bill, and the Bill does not change that at all. As I said, the levelling up White Paper set out the Government’s aspiration for, where policing and combined authority boundaries align, combined authority mayors to take the lead on public safety and take on the role of the PCC—and to take steps to remove the barriers to more CA mayors taking on PCC functions.

In an area where a devolution deal is agreed and the policing and CA boundaries are not coterminous, the Government wish to encourage close co-operation between the combined authority mayor and the PCC. While it is important for the area to shape exactly what strong partnership looks like in practice, one way of achieving this would be to use the non-constituent or associate membership model being established via provisions in the Bill. This could allow the PCC a seat at the table and allow the combined authority to confer voting rights on the PCC on matters relevant to public safety. The information and clarifications sought by this amendment are, we believe, already available, and we do not agree that there is any need for a further statement.

I turn to Amendment 54. Clause 59 amends the existing provisions concerning the local consent requirements for the combined authority mayors to take on the functions of a PCC. This reflects that this transfer is merely a process whereby functions are transferred from one directly elected person to another, without any implications for the local authorities in the area. Clause 59 maintains the triple-lock model for conferring functions. That triple lock is that any transfer or conferral of powers needs local consent, the agreement of the Secretary of State and approval by Parliament.

The change which Clause 59 makes is that in future, local consent will be given simply by the mayor, who is democratically accountable across the whole area. The transfer of PCC functions to a mayor in no way diminishes the role of local government in community safety. The local authority’s role in community safety partnerships remains the same and the police and crime panel will still exist, being responsible for scrutinising the mayor as the PCC in the same way it scrutinised the PCC.

A mayor having PCC functions will, we believe, be able more successfully to pursue their other ambitions and secure better overall outcomes for their community. A deputy mayor for policing and crime is appointed who can take on certain day-to-day responsibilities for this role, ensuring that the mayor can continue to focus on all their other priorities. The Government are clear that we expect mayors to discuss any proposal seeking a transfer of a PCC function with their combined authority in advance of submitting a request for such a transfer to government. This is in line with the existing expectation that mayors seek the views of the relevant PCC, whose consent is not required in legislation.

There is evidence of the considerable benefits that a mayor having PCC functions brings. For example, in Greater Manchester, following Greater Manchester Police’s escalation to “Engage” by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, and the resignation of its former chief constable, the mayor appointed a new chief constable to develop and lead the force’s transformation programme, the result of which has been to ensure that the force focuses on getting the basics right and improving outcomes for the region. Under the leadership of the chief constable and with oversight and support from the mayor, Greater Manchester Police is now responding faster to emergency calls, and the number of open investigations has halved since 2021, and the inspectorate released the force from “Engage” in October 2022 on the strength of the confidence in its improvement trajectory. The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, was clear that he, as the PCC for Greater Manchester, was accountable if things did not improve and that he should be held to account at the ballot box.

And finally, my Lords—although I think that says it all—government Amendment 307 provides for early commencement of Clause 59, which would allow for the statutory requirements that enable a transfer of PCC functions to CA mayors to be undertaken from the date of Royal Assent. This will enable the timely implementation of secondary legislation required for PCC function transfers to mayors to take place in time for the May 2024 elections.

The Government’s intention is to align as far as possible with the Gould principle relating to electoral management, which would suggest that any statutory instruments transferring PCC functions to mayors for May 2024 should be laid six months ahead of the elections in early November to provide notice to candidates, the electorate and the electoral administrations of any changes. It is for these reasons that the Government are unable to accept Amendment 307A proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. It would time out any PCC transfers in time for mayoral combined authority elections in 2024 where there is a local desire for this.

I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept the early commencement amendment for Clause 59 and that, following these explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

53A: Clause 57, page 49, line 15, at end insert—
“(3AB) An order under this section, laid within nine months of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 being passed, which adds a local government area to an existing area of a mayoral combined authority may be made only if—(a) the relevant council in relation to the local government area consents,(b) the mayor for the area of the combined authority consents, (c) the combined authority consents,(d) the statement of a consultation with the residents of the local government area asking their views on the order has been laid before each House of Parliament, and(e) the Secretary of State has consulted, and had regard to advice provided by, the Boundary Commission for England.”Member's explanatory statement
This adds additional requirements which must be satisfied before local government areas are added to an existing Combined Authority within nine months of Royal Assent. This follows reports that areas may be added to the West Midlands Combined Authority prior to the 2024 Mayoral Election.