Lord Hunt of Kings Heath:

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 statementThis 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.

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.

We will come on to talk about Natural England and its contribution, role and capability. I know that the Government have made additional resources available before the income that will come from EDPs comes on stream, but there are some genuine concerns about whether we are going to see the creation of an additional level of bureaucracy, uncertainty for developers as to the likely cost of any EDP levy, and the time it will take to get regulations in place under this Act. It is not a question of whether Natural England has enough people, it is whether it has enough of the right people and the scientific calibre to move away from what I see as a bureaucratic and tick-box exercise to a sensible and proportionate approach.

The Bill is very well intended, but we are dependent on a whole array of regulators, agencies and local planning authorities doing the right thing and understanding what they are there to do. Going back to the point the noble Lord, Lord Banner, raised before, and his Amendment on proportionality, many of our regulators do not seem to understand the issue of proportionality. What they understand is risk aversion. Seeing some of the public statements that regulators have issued, I do not believe they get it. I think there is a real risk that they will not operate the new legislation in the spirit in which it is intended.

My amendment is very modest. It is saying two things: first, impose strict deadlines for statutory consultations. We cannot have a situation where regulators do not respond and do what they are expected to do on time. We have to draw a line on that. Secondly, the council recommended international benchmarking. Regular international benchmarking of British project performance on infrastructure as compared with other countries would be very valuable indeed. It would be salutary because we would have it confirmed that, in general, we take longer, we cost more money and we get less outcome. This amendment would be helpful, and I hope noble Lords and the Government will be sympathetic. I beg to move.

My Lords, I wish to say something about the housing regulator, because it is absolutely as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is saying. As I explained earlier, in our practical experience, we have built a very successful housing company with local residents, which is trying to join the dots between housing, education, health and placemaking. We find that the housing regulator is constantly getting in the way of the innovation that we, with local residents, need to do, which has local support and a serious track record.

This particular regulator—and I have seen it in other areas as well—is a real problem. There needs to be real thought and reflection about whether these regulators are helping us innovate and find new ways of working—or are they just getting in the way? Of course, they need to ask challenging questions on using the money right, I get all of that. We need to address these issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is telling us. It is stopping us in east London doing what we now need to do to take our work to the next stage.

I want to say something about what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about the default risk aversion, and how there is a significant risk of that with regulators. There is a lot of merit in those comments. Largely, that stems from the application of the precautionary principle in much of the field of law that we are discussing now. Materially diluting the precautionary principle in a substantial way would have all sorts of troublesome consequences, but, in my judgment, some kind of counterbalance, which is what the proportionality principle is seeking to do, would help temper the effects of that. There is a later Amendment in the noble Lord’s name which would seek to modify the precautionary principle in quite a sensible way. But I agree that something needs to be done to ensure that that over-precautionism does not infect the application of these provisions.

My Lords, my Amendments 10 to 16 are in this group. These are more about Clause 2, so the officials decided to group them together.

On Amendment 8, I respect the former Minister’s experience, and probably frustrations, but, candidly, having represented a part of the country where there are probably more NSIPs than in any other Constituency, I am very concerned that trying to make sure that there are enough resources and even officials to sufficiently go through these combinations of NSIPs, which, of course, are all considered separately, is really quite a stretch. I am also conscious of what was mentioned earlier, about the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper that were generated to go with a variety of planning applications.

I remind the Committee that it is Parliament that has agreed to a lot of this legislation. Parliament has agreed for Natural England, for example, to be the regulator and, in effect, the decision-maker on a number of these matters. It is also usually Ministers who have designated many parts of our country to have these special areas of conservation, or whatever variety of designations there are, which bring in the extra challenge. I completely understand the point about the reasonableness test and proportionality—I completely get that—and that is why the last Administration tried to make some changes, particularly to unlock about 160,000 homes, but also placed various duties in terms of thinking about economic growth. So, as I say, I understand why there are concerns about timing but if we are going to adjust that, we need to make sure that the resourcing is there as well.

Clause 2 is all about the parliamentary scrutiny of national policy statements. I expect that certain elements of the process could be speeded up, but there are key points in here which actually remove accountability to Parliament by the Executive. I had not realised this when I tabled Amendment 13 but I then checked some of the procedures in the Commons, and on Report there, the Liaison Committee—the chair of every single Select Committee in the House of Commons—co-signed Amendment 87 in the other place to remove this so that the Government would have to continue to give a response to Parliament on any resolutions they passed. I find it extraordinary that the Government want to remove that. It is quite a simple thing to lay a Statement, or whatever it is.

The assessment of Minister Pennycook was, “Well, we have a variety of debates; we might ask the Select Committee to look at something”—by the way, he did not refer to the Select Committee in the Lords—“and, yeah, we have these sorts of Statements”. Statements are quite different at the other end, but still, they are not proper debates—they are not proper consideration—and I am concerned about that.

One of my other amendments in this group follows on from something that happened with the first national policy statement on nuclear that I was engaged in. There was a debate in the other House, and I suspect there may have been a debate at this end too. Along the way, something changed in the process. It relied entirely on the Liaison Committee getting a Select Committee to look at something and send it back, so that the Government would then respond to say that, as a consequence of that, they were making all these changes, but it then never came back to the House. There was a process where you could do something once the Secretary of State had laid it, but for Back-Benchers there was no mechanism to get a debate on the final national policy statement—it was impossible. It could have been done in the name of the Government, but it was not done—they were a Conservative Government, so do not worry; I had a pop at them at the time.

I do not understand why, given that the impact of national policy statements is so huge, the Government are going further in removing a key part of parliamentary scrutiny. I genuinely hope that the Government will think again. I would have no problem if the Government had other ways of dealing with the timing but we have to remember—we see it more in this House, where we have a wider range of not just parties but Cross-Benchers, and until this Parliament that has not been the same at the other end—that it is not fair on minority parties, particularly those representing constituencies where such NSIPs are being proposed, to remove their opportunity to stand up and represent their communities on what the future impact might be of a number of national policy statements.

My other amendments are somewhat technical, regarding not wanting the effects to be retrospective and so on. I will not cover every minutia, but that is what they intend to do, and to get some clarity from the Government on what they are planning to do with the timing.

On the wider point, Amendment 16 is where I am trying to pull together some of the threads of what this Bill should be about: improving nature, improving the speed of infrastructure and increasing the number of homes. In its recent report, the Office for Environmental Protection said that it would like the Government to make it standard practice that, when dealing with new policies, they routinely produce, publish and consider assessments within departments. That is necessary, because every Minister is legally required to consider the correlation between their policies and those in the environmental principles policy statement. That is in law. There is no way in this House to do that, apart from through trust, to see how it works together. It matters that we work together on making this happen.

There are frustrations that people might have. I appreciate that there is a legal case at the moment about whether what is in the Bill is compliant and whether it will reduce the impact of environmental law. I am not getting into that. However, one thing Ministers can experience is external bodies issuing legal action. They start off with a pre-action protocol letter. Under that, there is a duty of candour on the Government to release lots of information that the Minister will have considered on whether they were being compliant with the law in how they addressed the matter. That is not available to Parliament. I want to make it available to Parliament. I had a debate with the clerks about whether we should use the words “duty of candour” or similar. In essence, when we are trying to scrutinise not only the role of the Executive but how legislation is being applied, it is fair to this House and the other House to have a basis of information so that if, for whatever reason, the Minister decides, “We’re not going to worry about that bit, but we’re doing that consciously because we believe there’s a greater good under various articles”, we can accept that but be transparent about it.

This comes up in a similar principle later, under planning applications—based, by the way, on something that the chief executive of Natural England said in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place. What I am trying to do is get the cards on the table. Let us make sure the Environment Act 2021 and the targets in primary legislation are not all of a sudden ditched because of the rush to do X, Y and Z without this House or the other House knowing about it, so it can be challenged and potentially revised, and, if necessary, we can come forward with other amendments to legislation to make the Government comply with the law without waiting until whatever deadline it is, only for them to say, sorry, but they have not managed to do it.

That is why I am concerned that the amount of parliamentary scrutiny is being reduced. I want to make sure that both Houses have as much information as would be given to somebody putting in a pre-action protocol letter in order to make sure that we can continue to scrutinise. I commend my amendments to the Committee.

My Lords, I support Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to which I have added my name. I emphasise the points he made, in that I think the biggest risk with this Bill is that it will not deliver for large infrastructure, in the sense that it will not address the concerns around environmental regulation.

Part 3 is very well set up for housebuilding, but if we look at the high-profile issues with environmental regulation that we have seen with some of our large projects, such as the HS2 bat tunnel or the acoustic fish deterrent—the fish disco, as it is called—we find that those were all habitats issues that were uncovered when the developers started to assess the site and figure out how they were going to operate their specific piece of infrastructure. Those are not the kind of things that would have been addressed through the proposed environmental delivery plan mechanism or the nature restoration fund. It simply does not match up with the timescales of how the EDP process would work. That is something that we will come back to later in Committee.

However, there are some welcome things that the Government are looking at, and I welcome the amendment from the Government to remove the statutory requirement for a pre-application process on NSIPs. What the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has proposed sits alongside that really well, in setting out maximum deadlines and no-response provisions. This measure would be helpful to emphasise that and help speed large infrastructure through the system by making it a statutory requirement.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for leading this group on national policy and for his advocation for speed and simplicity, taking away two of the points that I was about to make. This goes to the heart of what our planning system needs to have: clarity and speed. Policy needs to be clear and consistently implemented, so that developers, planners and local councils understand what is required and how decisions will be made in a way that reduces risk and cost to all parties, while being clear and transparent to the public.

On timeliness, projects need to move through the system efficiently and effectively so that they are delivered on time and to avoid unnecessary, costly delays. How does the Minister intend to provide further detail about the review of national policy statements and ensure that clarity, consistency and timeliness are truly embedded in that process?

Amendment 9, to which I have added my name, seeks to probe the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” in the context of reviewing or amending national policy. Its aim is to clarify the intent behind the term, while still ensuring that Ministers retain the flexibility that they need for genuine national emergencies. My concern is that an amendment to the national policy statement, as required by new subsection (5A), could be delayed if the threshold for what constitutes “exceptional circumstances” is vague. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what she considers would fall within the scope of that phrase and whether the current wording risks introducing unnecessary uncertainty or even a shift in overall approach.

We need to strike a careful balance, avoiding the risk of judicial review while maintaining sufficient ministerial flexibility in genuine emergencies. Governments must be able to act swiftly when needed yet, if a decision is justified solely on the basis of exceptional circumstances, it becomes difficult to test or challenge that rationale. Courts often defer to such open-ended terms, which can weaken accountability, and your Lordships’ House may find it difficult to challenge the use of powers in this area. I would welcome reassurance from the Minister that the wording achieves the right balance.

Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her carefully considered and valuable contribution to this group. Her insight and experience will be vital in improving this Bill. In particular, I highlight Amendment 13 tabled by my noble friend. This amendment is vital, because it would preserve parliamentary accountability by requiring the Government to formally respond to any resolutions or recommendations from Select Committees. That, in turn, would help to clarify policy direction early, reduce uncertainty for developers and ensure timely engagement with concerns before they can cause delay. Stronger scrutiny at this stage can help catch potential issues before they escalate.

I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Mawson and Lord Ravensdale—in particular on the continuing issue of EDPs and their fitness for purpose, and the role of Natural England, which is something that I am sure we will come back to again and, possibly, again.

The amendments we have just discussed are small but significant measures. I hope that the Minister can provide your Lordships with the answers to these questions and engage the knowledge the Committee brings to ensure that we get this right.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, began this group in talking about the tensions that are to be found in creating the balance between getting the critical infrastructure that this country desperately needs and how we go about doing it. He quite rightly reminded the Committee of the escalating costs of particular infrastructure developments and gave the reason that risk aversion leads to piles of paper being produced to make sure that nobody is caught out by any of the challenges to the decisions that have been made.

I agreed with that; that is right. But the national policy statements, which are the foundation stones of planning and infrastructure development in this country, are critical. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is right to point out that any fundamental change to our national policy ought to have proper public accountability through your Lordships’ House and from the other place. She is quite right to do that, because accountability helps the process: it helps to maybe expose weaknesses in what is being proposed and maybe enhance the policy statement itself. In the rush for growth, we ought not to throw out the accountability that is essential in planning and infrastructure development—I think that that thread will run through discussions of the Bill. That is the dilemma and the tension we have: where do we have accountability, how much weight do we give to it and how much weight do we give to the urgent need for development? We are going to have to find our way through that.

Everybody here is, I think, anxious that the country is able to produce particularly critical infrastructure and housing without undue costs and delay. It is how we get there that is the problem. I am on board with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in wanting any changes to national policy statements at least to be brought before the House as affirmative resolutions. With that, I look forward to the Minister weaving her way through these dilemmas.

My Lords, a number of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook—whose Amendment was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson—seek to amend Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which set out new expectations for the regular updating of national policy statements and also establish a streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements when select changes are made to them.

Amendment 8 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I thank him for the amount of thought that he has clearly put into improving the Bill—and some very radical thinking, which we will come to in later suggestions, but which is always welcome. His amendment was also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. While I absolutely understand and share the desire to improve the speed and clarity of the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects and national policy statements, I believe that the amendment’s wholesale approach could potentially have unintended consequences.

First, the amendment proposes fixed time limits for statutory consultation. In the case of national policy statements, statutory consultation is not typically the cause of delay, unlike development consent orders, where we have removed the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation. For national policy statements, the time taken for statutory consultation varies significantly depending on the complexity of the policy area and the nature of the infrastructure involved. Imposing a uniform time limit risks undermining the quality and thoroughness of consultation, especially for those more complex or contentious sectors and projects. The Government’s own consultation principles make it clear that consultation should be proportionate—I think we will hear that word a lot during our debates—to the potential impacts of the proposal.

Secondly, the amendment attempts to tackle concerns about the timeliness of responses by statutory consultees to national policy statement consultations and requests for further information on development consent order applications. Our experience on national policy statements is that statutory consultees respond adequately and without too much delay. We appreciate that there is evidence of slower responses from statutory consultees on live development consent order applications. However, the idea that statutory consultees should completely lose their right to comment on an NPS if they do not respond within a set timeframe may be a step too far or too rigid.

Statutory consultees such as the Health and Safety Executive play a critical role in safeguarding public welfare. Their input is not optional but essential. Instead of removing their critical role in the process, the Government are actively reforming how they prioritise and resource their work across the planning system. This includes measures in the Bill that enable statutory consultees to fund their services across the broader planning system more sustainably and requires them to have regard to government-issued guidance on their role in the NSIP regime.

For the first time, this provides a statutory mechanism to ensure that consultees engage appropriately and in a timely manner, without compromising the integrity of the process. National policy statements are the cornerstone of the NSIP consenting process. I recognise that the spirit of these amendments is in keeping with wider approaches taken to make the system more productive and streamlined. However, the issues faced by national policy statements manifest themselves differently. In practice, these amendments would have unintended consequences that risk damaging how the NSIP system operates.

I welcome Amendment 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. It seeks greater clarity on the exceptional circumstances in which an NPS may not be updated within the mandatory five-year period. The amendment would replace the existing phrase “exceptional circumstances” with

“significant, unforeseen events beyond the control of the Secretary of State”.

I appreciate that the intention of the amendment is to clarify the scope of ministerial discretion in the event of national emergencies or other disruptions. My view is that the current wording is clear and already captures the intended meaning. “Exceptional circumstances” is a well-understood term. The current wording underlines the exceptionally high bar envisaged for the circumstances that must arise and persist in order for the Government to delay an update to a national policy statement. To make things clear, I can provide the Committee with two examples of circumstances that would be recognised as exceptional, justifying the use of this narrow exemption. The first is the suspension of Parliament, which could be due to the calling of a General Election. The second is the outbreak of a pandemic.

Not updating a national policy statement impacts investment and slows down the consenting process. It took more than 10 years to update the current suite of national policy statements, and some remain over 10 years old. That is why it is right for the Government to have such a high bar when it comes to exempting national policy statements from the requirement to be updated every five years. As such, the Bill already delivers the spirit of the amendment. However, I welcome the probing amendment as an opportunity to clarify the intent.

Amendments 10 and 11 would require the House of Commons to approve a national policy statement before it can be designated. The amendments do not extend the requirement to updates to an existing national policy statement. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s reasoning for the amendment but do not agree that the House of Commons procedure is in practice difficult for Members of Parliament to navigate. Let us take, for example, the National Networks National Policy Statement, which was designated only last year. A debate took place and the subsequent resolution was successfully passed in the House of Commons within the 21-day sitting period, showing that it is a practicable system with opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise and intervene.

Furthermore, new national policy statements are required to undergo public consultation. Indeed, it is common practice for them to go through two stages of consultation: the first on the scope and a second on the draft national policy statement itself. The national policy statement is then subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and government cannot proceed until it has laid a report in Parliament responding to any parliamentary resolutions or committee recommendations. Lastly, Members of Parliament have 21 sitting days to raise any objections before the NPS is designated.

The process for designating a new NPS is therefore robust and, as I have set out, there are multiple opportunities for Members of Parliament to engage in it. To add a further requirement that the Commons must approve a new NPS by resolution is not proportionate if it is likely to delay the designation stage of these vital policy documents and the critical infrastructure projects that rely on them. This would have significant negative knock-on effects for investment, growth and housing delivery.

Amendments 12 to 15 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey would remove the new reflective amendment procedure, adding months to the timeframe for updating national policy statements and undermining the Government’s commitment to drive quicker decision-making in the NSIP regime. Ensuring that national policy statements are up to date assists applicants and the examining authority, and the Secretary of State can have regard to them as important and relevant considerations in the decision-making process for NSIP applications, even if the application is examined against the previous version as a result of the transitional provisions in the updated national policy statement.

As the Government have already set out, we are not trying to remove wholesale parliamentary scrutiny or the ability of the public to engage and consult. I will take this opportunity to set out the safeguards, the process that reflective amendments will follow and the guarantees we have given in the other place. First, the Secretary of State is required to lay a Statement in Parliament announcing that a review of the national policy statement is taking place. Secondly, we will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. Thirdly, Ministers will make themselves available to speak to the Select Committee during the consultation period, as far as is practicable. Fourthly, should the Select Committee publish a report within the timeframe of the public consultation period, the Government will take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before Parliament. Finally and most importantly, the NPS as amended will be required to be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time the House of Commons may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. This means that Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted.

For clarity, I will also set out the types of changes the new reflective amendment route would apply to. They are: legislative changes such as new enactments or revocations; amendments or repeals to existing legislation since the NPS was last amended; any relevant court decisions issued since the NPS was last amended; any changes to documents referred to in the NPS; and already published government policy, including on priority areas such as the national planning policy guidance.

Recognising the role that Select Committees can play in scrutinising and improving policy, the Government are committed to ensuring that they have notified the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. The Minister will have already laid a Statement before Parliament announcing the review of an NPS, regardless of the anticipated procedure to be used. Should a Select Committee publish a report within the timeframe of the public consultation period, the Government will take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before Parliament for 21 days, where it can be scrutinised by either House. At the end of the reflective amendment process, the NPS, as amended, will still need to be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time the House of Commons can resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—

The reason I know so much about this and there was a debate on the national networks is that I kicked off a hell of a fuss and the Leader of the House then pledged that the Government, despite it not being in the law, would do these resolutions. My concern is about the fact that so much depends on what the front bench decides to do with time. That is why I am concerned about it, but I appreciate what the Minister has said.

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.

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.

Amendment 9 not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2: National policy statements: parliamentary requirements

Amendments 10 to 15 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Amendment 16 not moved.

Clause 3: Power to disapply requirement for development consent