My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Lansley says, I signed his Amendment 55, but I am also broadly supportive of Amendment 54, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Pidgeon—I thank the former for the way she opened the debate on this important set of amendments.

My noble friend Lord Lansley set out very powerfully the concerns that many of us have about Clause 41 and its potential consequences. His Amendment 55 seeks to remedy that by making sure that the provisions regarding listed buildings and conservation areas can continue to be applied. Of course, Clause 41 also applies protections for scheduled monuments, which is why I have tabled my stand-part notice on whether Clause 41 ought to stand part of the Bill at all; my noble friend Lord Lansley asked much the same question.

Like my noble friend and others, I have discussed these amendments and this clause with organisations including the Heritage Alliance and the Heritage Railway Association, which I thank for their time and insights. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, outlined, Clause 41 would sweep away the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent, and notices for works on land of archaeological importance for projects carried out under the terms of the Transport and Works Act 1992. As she said, it makes no distinction between the sites that are protected. She raised the horrifying example, for me, a Northumbrian, of Hadrian’s Wall, which is not just a scheduled monument but a UNESCO world heritage site. I know that the present Government take a different view from the previous one on another world heritage site, Stonehenge, and the suggested changes to the A303 there, but I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues share our belief in the importance of the protections that allow people to raise their concerns about the scheme proposed in that instance.

As set out in the delegated powers memorandum which accompanies the Bill, the intention of Clause 41 is that an order under the Transport and Works Act would become more of a one-stop shop, encompassing the Majority of approvals required to deliver a project. This clause would enable those orders to disapply the need to obtain authorisations under the relevant heritage regimes, rather than asking an applicant to apply separately. As my noble friend Lord Lansley says, that is not necessarily the case at present.

I see some benefits if the purpose here is solely streamlining. If you take a heritage organisation such as a heritage railway, it could reduce the bureaucracy that it sees when it wants to make changes to the site that it protects and for which it is the custodians. But many heritage organisations have raised very serious concerns about the potential consequences of the clause as drafted and share the concerns that my noble friend has set out about the motivations behind it, or certainly the consequences of it. It provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State to disapply legislative protections relating to heritage, and we have not yet had the sort of clarity that we need about how and when this discretion would be applied.

During Committee in Another place, my Honourable Friend David Simmonds MP asked for that clarity and some explanation of the circumstances in which this discretion might be exercised. He rightly pointed out that significant infrastructure developments are often very close to heritage buildings and other historic sites where there will be a legitimate expectation from both local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken. As Mr Simmonds noted, there are many glittering examples of former industrial buildings, particularly those connected with Victorian transport networks, being reused for residential developments or other new uses. That is a great part of heritage, breathing new life into old buildings. It is also far better, both for the environment and for the pride and identity of local communities, than simply demolishing these buildings, clearing the sites and losing part of our shared heritage.

As Heritage Minister in the last Government, I had the great pleasure of seeing many such examples and joining enterprising organisations such as the Arch Company and the Railway Heritage Trust at projects including the old stationmaster’s house at Denmark Hill in Camberwell. That grade 2 listed building, designed by the leading Victorian railway architect Charles Henry Driver in the 1860s, was, sadly, damaged by a fire in 1980, along with the rest of the station. Most of the station building was restored, including what is now the aptly named Phoenix public house—it rose from the ashes, with brilliant support from the Camberwell Society—but the former stationmaster’s house lay derelict for 43 years and was put on Historic England’s heritage at-risk register. Now, I am glad to say, after a £320,000 refurbishment, including a £44,000 grant from the Railway Heritage Trust, it is a thriving coffeeshop, employing local people and serving what I must say are delicious pastries.

I am glad that these issues were probed when the Bill was examined in Committee another place. Under questioning from my honourable friend David Simmonds and Gideon Amos, the Liberal Democrat MP, the Minister in another place, Matthew Pennycook, said:

“It is not the intention of the clause to weaken heritage protection safeguards”.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 13/5/25; col. 219.]

It is good to hear that, but words in Hansard do not give the assurances that those of us who care about heritage—not just those who work in the sector but many of our fellow country men and women—would like to see that protections and safeguards are not being eroded here, even unwittingly.

When the Bill was published, the National Trust said that it had serious concerns about the scope of this clause:

“There is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the Bill”.

Even the Government’s own statutory adviser on heritage protection, Historic England, has said—at some length, but it is helpful to hear—that:

“Whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discretion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency, which would undermine the policy intention … In addition, the disapplication of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as exists at present”.

Historic England concluded that

“the current wording of Clause 37 may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining planning decisions, whilst having the unintended consequence of reducing heritage protection”.

In the face of these very stark warnings from heritage bodies and the questions raised in another place, the Minister there said that he would go away and seriously think about how the Government can provide further clarity and reassurance on this point. Sadly, no further clarity or reassurance was given before the Bill left another place and came to your Lordships’ House, so I hope that the Minister can set out today some of the fruits of the thinking that his colleagues and others have done since then. Until we have that clarity and reassurance, many heritage bodies, and very many people who cherish the buildings and infrastructure that we have inherited from our forebears, will continue to have significant concerns about the potential of Clause 41 to cause confusion and misunderstanding at best or, far worse, unintended harm to our shared heritage.

I would be grateful if the Minister could sit out more clearly why the Government feel that this provision is needed and what the perceived problem is that it seeks to address. I am keen to hear what the intended scale and scope of this provision is, and reassurances that there will not be a watering down of protections for heritage as a result, as well as reassurances that heritage considerations will be weighed appropriately when the relevant Secretary of State is considering whether it is in the public interest to make an order. I would also be grateful to know whether guidance will be forthcoming to help clarify this process for all relevant parties.