Lord Lucas:

Moved by Lord Lucas

158: After Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—“Planning: duty of candourAfter section 8A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (The Homes and Communities Agency) insert—“8B Planning: duty of candour(1) A local planning authority who have the function of plan-making and determining applications for planning permission or permission in principle shall, in its interactions with applicants and those who make representations in connection to such applications, operate with a duty of candour.(2) A local planning authority operates with a duty of candour where—(a) in general, it acts in an open and transparent way with respect to its decision-making process in preparing and approving the development plan for its area;(b) in general, it acts in an open and transparent way with respect to its decision-making process in determining whether a planning application should be approved, and in making determinations in connection with the approvals process of such applications;(c) where it has made a decision, including with respect to the approval or otherwise of a planning application, the acceptance or otherwise of submissions or representations with respect to a planning application, or in connection with other activities inherent in the processing of a planning application, it outlines the reasoning for that decision in a way that is—(i) publicly accessible,(ii) written in clear language,(iii) consistent with the Nolan Principles on Standards in Public Life, and(iv) in accordance with national planning policy guidance.(3) An officer of a local planning authority shall, in their interactions with elected members of the authority, operate with a duty of candour in respect of their professional obligations.(4) An officer of a local planning authority operates with a duty of candour where they explain, clearly, accurately and in accessible language, what the rights and duties of the local planning authority are in respect of any application, potential application or development plan matter, regardless of the policies or preferences of the elected member concerned.””

My Lords, if I may I will start by being grumpy in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others. This is Committee, and it is inappropriate to say, “Before the Minister sits down”. Saying that, as a Back-Bencher, suggests that allowing us to speak again is in some ways a concession on the part of the Minister. In Committee we can speak as many times as we like, whenever we like. That is a right which I do not see much exercised today, but we really should preserve it. On Report we are restricted; Committee is a free-for-all. It is important for getting to the bottom of things that we assert our right as Back-Benchers to speak when we wish to, and do not act as if this is a concession by the Government or Ministers.

Anyway, to turn to my Amendment, my object here is to see whether we can make the planning system work better and improve the flow of national planning policy into decisions taken on the ground by imposing a duty of candour on the system. At the bottom end, the duty of candour is a strengthening of the power of officers because it removes from them the pressure to bend their advice to what they think will please the members of their authority, or maybe the public beyond that. It gives them a duty to be straightforward, honest and open about what things actually are. It is a considerable help to an official in dealing with members that they know they have to be clear—that they cannot say things just because they will get it in the neck from members if they do not say what members think they want.

Similarly, it helps members in their dealings with the public if the public know that the members are under a duty of candour to say things as they are, rather than trying to pretend that things are difficult or duck awkward decisions. In addition, operating the system in such a way that everybody knows that it has to be open and truthful, and that what is said is the way things are, is a great help to the public in dealing with change, which is naturally often unwelcome, and understanding how that fits into the development of the country as a whole.

Everybody I have talked to is committed to us having more houses. We want the Government to succeed in their ambitions, but it is often painful when it comes down to individual decisions, as the last group of amendments has demonstrated. There are always reasons not to do something. Having a system that we trust, and really understanding how it works, must be helpful, and having a duty of candour would make a difference to that. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for signing my Amendment 185. This amendment was originally in a separate group but, for the benefit of the Committee, I put it into what I would call the odds and sods group—I am not suggesting that any of the amendments are odd or, indeed, that any noble Lords are sods. Nevertheless, this is about addressing a particular situation where it is right that Members of Parliament should be calm, considered, important consultees on any nationally significant infrastructure projects that are proposed in their Constituency. Many constituents fully expect Members of Parliament to have opinions on such matters. I appreciate that, at times, many Members of Parliament will say that they have no say on planning because it is a matter for the council. Well, of course, with NSIPs, it is different: it is a matter for the Secretary of State, who may delegate. It is therefore important that Members of Parliament have, in effect, an automatic right to participate in the examination.

The other thing—this came up for me when I used to be an MP—is that it is not always straightforward when modifications to NSIPs are made once consent has already been granted. That part of the process tends to just fly by with very little awareness but can be hugely significant. There is limited resource for MPs compared to, say, councillors, who can access their council officers in local authorities. For me, this would be a helpful check in both ways: first, being guaranteed not only to be notified of the original application and being able to speak at the various examinations but also to be made fully made of subsequent changes. I am very conscious that noble Lords may suggest that this is a barrier; it is not. It is about empowering the rights of local communities through the inclusion of their Member of Parliament.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 185J, which is on the GDPR, the general data protection regulation, which I am sure we all have to deal with on the internet every day when we make an inquiry on anything. It is around the issue of transparency versus data regulation. As we have talked about before, one of the key things about the planning system is that it has to have public confidence. One of the key ways that it has public confidence is through transparency. When that transparency disappears, it becomes a real issue. This is one of the conflicts that has come out between planning and GDPR.

It really came about in 2017, when Basildon Council—which I do not know well, I have to admit—received a £150,000 fine for disclosures that it made of personal information during a planning application. It was a major case, clearly, as reflected in the fine, but it was due to the failure of the council to redact certain personal information in that planning decision and procedure. The reaction to that from local authorities generally was to go into panic mode and decide that—quite rightly, as far as council tax payers were concerned—they did not want to be seen to be risking public money by making mistakes on procedural issues on planning and by contraventions of the GDPR.

Having done some research on this, as far as I can see, I think that this is the only example or incidence ever of a significant GDPR fine for planning on a local authority. However, I have come across in my local community people who have suffered from local authorities, in terms of planning, particularly in the area of enforcement, going through a process of overredaction or restricted disclosure—in fact, blanket non-disclosure on a number of occasions. This means that transparency is disappearing. People are often unable to find out what is happening in terms of enforcement cases, meaning that community confidence in that procedure and its outcomes is lost. There is also a definite inconsistency between local authorities in how this is applied.

This is a very important issue in terms of the planning procedures. I am trying to find out from the Government, in this probing amendment, how they intend to make sure that transparency is maintained, that there is a consistency and that councils once again are confident to be as transparent as possible. Clearly, it is important that certain personal details are redacted in terms of GDPR and how the Information Commissioner wishes this system to work. It should not get in the way in terms of procedures, understanding where individual cases have got to, particularly in enforcement, and in ensuring that we have consistency and less concern that there will be a liability on local authorities and council tax payers if this very extreme position is kept. I would like to hear from the Minister how this can be reconciled, so that we get that transparency and confidence back into the planning system, particularly in the enforcement space.

My Lords, I support Amendment 185, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey.

Only about half a dozen noble Lords in the Committee at the moment have previously served as Members of Parliament. From my own experience, there is nothing more annoying as an MP than to find constituents writing to you about some planning development that you know nothing about when other stakeholders have been notified. The Member of Parliament must then ask the council, the Government or the agency what the issues are about before forming a view on it and either supporting the constituents’ concerns or not. Constituents simply do not understand why MPs are not already in the loop. That diminishes their status when it seems that every other Tom, Dick and Harry has been on the stakeholder consultation list.

I appreciate that this amendment is narrowly focused, with a much smaller range of stakeholders. However, the issue here, as my noble friend has said, concerns nationally significant infrastructure projects, where the Secretary of State is the decider. Therefore, while MPs might not be on the general planning consultation list, it would be reasonable for them to be on the list for these nationally significant infrastructure projects. The principle is the same. That is why I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey.

My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 185SG, can I thank colleagues from all parties across the Committee who have supported me, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is in Birmingham today?

I declare my interests relating to this amendment. I am the chairman of the 360 Degree Society. This is a national social business that is applying the lessons learned from over 40 years of practical work in east London to community developments across the UK. Today, my colleagues and I are focusing on integrated development and placemaking, with business, public and social sector partners. The relevant business partners for this amendment include Barratt Redrow, Kier Group, Morgan Sindall Group, HLM Architects, the NHS and various local authorities.

This amendment is aimed at preparing the ground for and supporting the Secretary State for Health Wes Streeting’s 10-year plan for the future of the health service as he seeks to move services out of hospitals and into the community. It is my view, and that of my colleagues with many years of experience, that the health service needs to get upstream into the prevention agenda and move services out of expensive hospitals and into the community. This Planning and Infrastructure Bill is about not just housing but building truly joined-up places and cultures, where families want to live and where communities can thrive. It is my experience that the built environment and culture are profoundly connected. We really are the places that we live, work and play within.

Many of our inner cities and their fractured communities show the social costs of getting this wrong. This Bill and this amendment provide us with an opportunity to nudge the right direction of travel in a practical way, and it comes at a crucial time. So many previous attempts by government departments to encourage a more joined-up approach to development at a macro level have failed. I suggest that the opportunities to join the dots that make a real-world difference are in the micro, at place.

This amendment seeks both to support the Government’s desire to build 1.5 million homes and to ensure that we learn from the mistakes of the past. We need to create more joined-up services and communities and move beyond rhetoric into practice.

I could take noble Lords to so many places across the country where services are literally hiding behind their own fences and are not joined up, either physically at place or structurally in a co-ordinated operating culture. The main players barely know each other on the same street, yet they all work with the same families. This is an expensive disaster that continues to replicate. It needs to stop.

In new developments, we are still witnessing on the ground a fragmented health and community infrastructure. Not only are they not creating a sense of place but they are in danger of unintentionally repeating many of the same mistakes of large-scale housing developments of the past. We could be in the 1960s or 1970s: soulless housing estates, created by both the private and public sectors, that generate well-documented social and economic problems over time. Local communities need a soul and beating heart at their centre.

In the modern world, health is everybody’s business. It is no longer a matter for just the medical profession. The focus now rightly needs to be on the social determinants of health. We urgently need to build more joined-up social and health developments in local communities and neighbourhoods. In front of us is a real opportunity, as this Government commit themselves to building 1.5 million homes, to rethink the social, health and welfare infrastructure in these communities, and to bring together housing, health, education, welfare, and jobs and skills, truly encouraging innovation and more joined-up approaches.

Lots of research out there gives endless data on why all this makes sense; we just need to start doing it. One housing association’s social prescribing programme supported 277 people and reported a 90.8% change in their well-being. Mixed-use developments that blend residential, commercial, health and recreational spaces stimulate local economies by attracting businesses, creating jobs and prosperity. This research shows that the proximity of services encourages residents to shop and dine locally, creating a self-sustaining economic ecosystem. Siloed housing schemes are not only less effective but more expensive in the long run.

This amendment seeks to encourage closer working relationships between the public, private and social sectors so that, in this next major building phase, we actively encourage innovations, best practice and greater co-operation between these sectors. We cannot force people to work together, but we can actively encourage them to do so. We need to create learning-by-doing cultures across the country, which share best practice, as we set out on this new, exciting journey of housebuilding and infrastructure.

This amendment is a first attempt to find a form of words that encourages greater co-operation at place between the place-makers. The wording is not perfect and I am sure we can improve it, but it allows us to have a cross-party debate about the siloed machinery of the state that is not delivering the change that people want to see and experience. Very good people from different political parties have attempted, over the years, to mend these disconnects at departmental level. I have worked with many of them and this has proved really difficult to do. This amendment offers a simple, practical solution that encourages a direction of travel and a clear steer to practitioners and people of good will on the ground.

In my experience, what really counts when it comes to innovation and change is not diktats from government or more process and strategy, but transparent, joined-up, working relationships between partners involved on the ground. The siloed world of government is increasingly not fit for purpose and is daily hindering the very relationships we now need to bring together and help flourish.

The 360 Degree Society, which I help run, has a proven methodology that is enabling co-operation between major parties involved in place-making from the public, business and social sectors, and residents. There seems to be a consensus around what Wes Streeting is proposing for the future of the health service. We are at a moment where the players in local authorities, the NHS, the social and private sectors and housebuilders want to build a more joined-up world. We have all talked about joining up services and cultures; this amendment provides a practical next step on this journey.

Some of this is about ensuring that community infrastructure is an integrated part of large-scale developments and is created early on, rather than the last element to be built, but also that a much wider range of partners are involved in creating high-quality new places where people are healthy and can thrive and prosper. The 360 Degree Society, which I lead, has created a social value toolkit to explore the practicalities of how to do this. To take just one example, we suggest getting beyond the often confrontational, usually purely transactional approach between developers and local authorities and special interest groups to get to a place where there is a genuine commitment and endeavour to agree a shared vision for the place.

Our experience suggests that this is partly achieved by surprisingly straightforward changes, such as developing human relationships between key players and focusing on them. When we get to know someone, rather than just reading their papers and emails, it is surprising how often a way forward can be found. Relationships with the key players, rather than consulting and engaging absolutely everyone, are part of a way forward we suggest. The purpose of this amendment is to help create the appetite and desire to encourage colleagues to take this approach and encourage innovation in this space.

I was in east London recently, in a multi-million pound development. I was met by an African mother with two rather beautiful children. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent; the health centre is at one end of the estate, the community building at another, the nursery somewhere else and the school somewhere else. She described how her child was already picking up needles in the play area and she showed me a small video of two youths outside the housing association office jumping into a van and stealing the contents. The culture was already starting and I can imagine this mother already wondering—these estates need strong families —whether she was going to stay.

Let me briefly share with you a practical example of what success looks like in practice. My colleagues and I do not like papers; we tend to build practical examples with partners. In 2007, I was asked by Christine Gilbert, then CEO of Tower Hamlets Council, who went on to run Ofsted, to lead what became a multi-million pound development in Tower Hamlets, following a murder and considerable violence between two warring white and Bengali housing estates. The details of this development are in Hansard, because we debated it in the levelling-up Bill, but the basic points are: you had a failing school with a fence; next door, a failing health centre with a fence; attempts to build 600 homes that had spent £3 million on schemes, with not a flat built; and two warring communities, one Bengali and one white.

My colleagues and I spent time building relationships with local residents and with the local authority, the NHS and the housing association—top, middle and front line. We started with no investment and we have rebuilt a £40 million school; a £16 million health centre; 600 homes, with 200 for sale; and now a new primary school. In June, Professor Brian Cox and I did our 13th science summer school, and he led a masterclass at the end of the day; this school had involved 695 children and, at the end of the day, a group of them in a masterclass debated quantum physics—an extraordinary experience.

What were the lessons learned? First, it was not about structure but about people and relationships—

Order!

I am just about to finish. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, told us on Tuesday that there is a rising tide in this space. My suggestion is that we all need to grasp the moment or we will lose it yet again. The foundation stones need to be laid now. Let us take the first step together. I beg to move.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the Committee for jumping ahead of him in speaking to my noble friend’s Amendment. I had not clocked that he was due to speak and that it was his amendment. I apologise for my discourtesy.

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and I shall add a very brief footnote to what he has just said.

It of course makes sense for there to be co-operation and co-ordination between public authorities as they develop community infrastructure. Otherwise, as the noble Lord has just said, you get housing estates without the shops, schools and medical centres that are needed. A local plan would normally do this. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify which authorities do it best. It is some time since I was a Planning Minister, but it was certainly the case that some planning authorities were exemplary in how they led the planning system and others fell far behind. The amendment askes the Secretary of State to identify the leaders in the field, publish the best practice and invite local authorities to follow that best practice. That seems to me to be in everyone’s interest, because the whole planning system depends on high-quality, up-to-date local plans. The amendment is seeking to do that. If a new Clause is a step too far for the Minister, perhaps it could be incorporated into the NPPF or other guidance.

I shall say a final word on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment about involving local MPs, which in some cases is linked to what I have just spoken about. Her amendment would simply add the local MP to the list of interested parties in a development that has national implications. It would not give them any additional rights; it would simply ensure that, if there is a development, one of the people who has to be notified is the local MP. My noble friend Lord Blencathra outlined the case very well. Any sensible developer would have involved the local MP at a much earlier stage, so I see this as a long stop, so that if for any reason the local MP has not been involved he is not at a loss when the local paper rings him up just before deadline asking him whether he has a view on what has just been proposed. It seems to me to be an eminently sensible amendment, and I hope the Minister is able to smile on it.

My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points on these amendments. They are a wee bit difficult to link up in some respects. I understand that most of them are about providing checks and balances within the system, or as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, framed it, more transparency.

I support the broad principle of these amendments, including the duty of candour, if we can refine that in the planning system. On Amendment 185SG, the key is getting public authorities and local authorities to work together. I support public authorities having a general principle for their schools, health authorities, hospitals or whatever, provided that it gives enough flexibility for local areas to make decisions, which might be different in a rural area from decisions in London. We need to make sure there is that flexibility.

Finally, we need to ensure that it does not delay the processes. Sometimes, if you put additional checks and balances in planning, local authorities will use them as an excuse for why there is a delay in a planning decision being taken at a much earlier stage. In broad principle, I support the basis of these amendments, but we need to make sure that they would not delay the processes.

I will make a few quick points in the absence of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made his own points very well, so I will not repeat them.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I imagine most MPs recognise that their local councils put all their planning applications online now, and a quick look online on a Friday afternoon by a researcher might find exactly what has gone up that week without the need for any change to legislation. But I understand how it feels when someone gets in touch with you and you do not know; I recognise her dilemma.

We wholeheartedly agree with the impassioned plea from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about consultation and communities. However, when things get as bad as the estate that he described, it has gone way beyond the need for planning to put it right. It sounded more as if it was heading towards the Bronx or similar, and in that sort of instance other processes have to kick in. I was tempted to add the rider, “Other consultants are also available for this work”—I thought he did a good advertising job there.

The Amendment that I really want to turn to is Amendment 158, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I understand where he is coming from, but, when I read the amendment, I felt that the planning authorities actually do all those things and try to act appropriately. The whole list that he put in his amendment—I will not read it out again—is, in my experience, what they plan to do. I guess what he is getting at is that he has experience, as have I, of officers being leaned on—those are the words he used, but I would go so far as to say that sometimes they are bullied—by politicians into making decisions.

Thanks to the last Government’s work, carried on by this Government, we now have a lot more information about what is going on in planning committees—we have statistics and things that actually tell us what is going on. If you read the planning press, you see that it is clear which authorities, be it members or officers, are not functioning properly. There is help out there for dysfunctional councils in that regard. A council that will remain nameless was in that position and got a very poor peer review, but then at a council meeting all said, “We don’t agree with this poor peer review”. I guess the question then is what happens next when councils really are failing.

Officers are really good. The amendment makes it seem as if it is black and white, but planning officers understand the role of politicians in the planning procedure—they understand political will—and recognise that they have a legitimate role in what is happening in planning. I have had many a discussion—when I was a councillor, not a mayor—where I have said what residents feel, and the officers have said, “Well, you could say that, but…”. They are good at understanding that you have a role and want to help. They are professional. However, when discussing specific cases, officers make you realise that there is nuance. Interpreting a planning rule is not black and white but very grey. People might say, “It says the gardens have to be this big”, but the officer’s response might be, “The gardens are a bit smaller but do other things that are better and more than we expect, so we’re going to give it planning permission”. It is not simple; it is all a question of nuance and interpretation.

I am quite confident that the system should work if things are done as they already happen. My concern sometimes, when things are demonstrably going wrong or exposed to be so, is what happens next.

My Lords, Amendment 158, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, sets out the principle that local planning authorities should operate under a duty of candour. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that many, if not most, local authorities operate very good planning services and do what I believe my noble friend is setting out.

However, I agree with my noble friend that there would be a benefit to this. I think it would support planning officers in their job, because they would not be so arm-twisted by others outside—and not just by councillors; I can think of some developers and others who do some arm-twisting at times. This matter is important. Communities need confidence that decisions that shape the character and future of their towns, villages and cities are taken in good faith and that the process is accessible, transparent and fair. The amendment makes a constructive contribution to this discussion.

On Amendment 185SG in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, as a councillor I agree—I think all of us ex-councillors here will agree—that we have frustrations as we know how it ought to be, but it is not. I remember having a very long conversation with people at my local hospital about some things we were seeking to do, asking why they could not move this, or do this or that. They basically said, “We would love to work with you and do it, but every Monday morning we get a call from the chief executive of the NHS and all he wants to know is about delayed transfers out of hospital”. Doing something that would fix a problem in six or 12 months’ time was not on the priority agenda.

This is a big issue with all public bodies: they all have their own priorities and all operate in silos, as has been so eloquently made clear. Placing a duty on public bodies and authorities, not only to follow best practice but to co-operate, could be very beneficial in coming up with better communities and better plans for our areas. This is a vital point. We need joined-up thinking, collaboration and co-ordination. They are not optional extras; they are fundamental. There needs to be some mechanism or tool that makes it very clear for those public bodies that they need to co-operate. I emphasise that sometimes it is the local authority that gets criticised when, in many instances—I would say the vast Majority of them—it is about the inability to convene the whole public sector and quasi-public bodies together. Therefore, I am very supportive of the sentiments of this amendment.

Amendment 185J in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises another practical and sensible point. I appreciate it is a probing amendment, but the issue of GDPR is a crucial one within local government. Again, I can say from personal experience—my noble friend Lord Banner made a comment earlier about the precautionary principle—I find that officers generally have a precautionary principle and will move to the safest option. That is not necessarily the most transparent option. If there is clear guidance that gives them clarity about where that line is, that could be very helpful in enabling officers to do their job better and more transparently, while securing, quite rightly, the privacy of residents and the public.

I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling Amendment 185. There have been a number of comments on this. As set out in Section 102B of the Planning Act 2008, a person within category 1, if they are the owner, lessee, tenant—whatever the tenancy period—or occupier of the land concerned, whose property may be subject to compulsory purchase acquisition under a development consent order, is automatically deemed an interested party. They have notification rights and a statutory place in the examination of an application. The amendment would extend this category to include any Members of Parliament in whose Constituency a proposed development is to take place.

I completely agree it is appropriate that MPs know what is going on within their constituencies. However, such a change would give them a formal role in the process rather than relying on access through public channels or discretion. It might alter how MPs engage with nationally significant infrastructure projects, including those that are more contentious. I can see the case and recognise the change in balance between local involvement and the national framework of planning. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position. Do they see merit in giving MPs a statutory role in this way? How does that sit with the strengthening of local voices within planning law?

In closing, I thank all noble Lords for raising important questions of candour, co-operation and transparency. These are not just procedural matters but go to the heart of how we deliver in this country—how we build trust with communities and ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose.

I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments, and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Candour, co-operation and transparency are key issues in planning.

Amendment 158, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to impose a duty of candour on local planning authorities and their officers when carrying out planning functions. This Government completely support the principle of this amendment. It is important that local authorities and their officers act with candour when carrying out their duties. I hope that I can provide the noble Lord with assurance that this amendment is not needed.

The Government are committed to bringing forward the Hillsborough law, which will be introduced as a Bill into Parliament shortly. The Bill will introduce a professional duty of candour, requiring candour from all public authorities and their officials. Once the Bill has been introduced, there will be further details on how it will operate. In addition, in relation to planning, there are already provisions in planning law which encourage candour. For instance, there are special requirements when a local planning authority is considering its own applications for development. Planning regulations also require all decisions on planning applications to be published on planning registers, and for local planning authorities to clearly and precisely set out the reasons for these decisions. Therefore, we do not think further specific provisions are needed now.

The proposed new Clause in Amendment 185, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks that Members of Parliament should be treated as category 1 persons under Section 102B of the Planning Act, thus automatically being treated as interested parties. We all recognise the vital role that Members of Parliament play in representing their constituents and engaging with nationally significant infrastructure projects. Their involvement in the DCO process is both welcome and encouraged. However, I would like to clarify the existing provisions for becoming an interested party. Under current legislation, any individual or organisation, including Members of Parliament, may submit a relevant representation during the designated period and thus become an interested party and have formal status in the examination process, allowing them to attend hearings, respond to Written Questions, and raise concerns about the impact of the project.

I turn to the potential legal implications of the amendment. Category 1 persons are defined in legislation as those with a direct interest in land, including owners, lessees, tenants and occupiers. The need for defining persons within category 1 is to ensure that those with a legal or physical stake in the land affected by a proposed development are properly notified. This, therefore, is a separate provision within the Act which seeks to protect the interests of those persons whose land could be impacted by the projects through proposed compulsory acquisition and ensure that they are not prejudiced from being able to engage with the examination. Including relevant Members of Parliament in this category could introduce ambiguity and inconsistency into the statutory framework. It could risk conflating the role of elected representatives with that of landowners and occupiers, potentially undermining the clarity and coherence of the legislation. I respectfully reassure the Committee that the Planning Act provides sufficient and straightforward provision which allows a Member of Parliament to register as an interested party and meaningfully engage in applications which impact on their Constituency.

Amendment 185J seeks to probe the issue of balancing the need for transparency in the planning system with the need for data protection and security. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling this amendment, because it emphasises that it is important to get this balance right. I hope to reassure the noble Lord that planning guidance is already available, which takes account of the need to balance transparency with the principles of data protection. We recognise that transparency about planning decisions is critical, but it is also important that sensitive personal data is protected.

When the GDPR framework was introduced, with its enhanced protections, there was some uncertainty among local planning authorities about how it should apply to their planning functions. That is why in 2021 the Government funded and supported the Planning Advisory Service to prepare and publish comprehensive guidance to local planning authorities setting out how to comply with GDPR when carrying out their planning responsibilities. This guidance covers a range of activities, including decision-making on planning applications, making local plans and exercising enforcement. We do not think there needs to be further statutory guidance from the Secretary of State.

Amendment 185SG would require authorities to follow best practice guidance, published by the Secretary of State, for the development of community infrastructure. It would also require authorities to publish an annual report assessing their compliance with the guidance. This Government recognise how critical it is that new homes are accompanied by supporting infrastructure. The NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner.

Contributions from developers, secured through Section 106 planning obligations and the community infrastructure levy, play an important role in helping to deliver the local infrastructure required to support new development and mitigate its impacts. That is why the Government are committed to strengthening the system. As I have mentioned previously, it is already the case, as set out in the NPPF, that plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other local infrastructure.

Plan-makers should collaborate with the local community, infrastructure providers and other stakeholders to develop those policies. Local plans are subject to public examination by an independent inspector to determine whether the local plan is sound and can be adopted. Local authorities can only adopt a plan that is sound, and part of the soundness test is that a plan should be consistent with national policy and be supported by evidence. The views of local people are required to be taken into account as part of the planning process. If the inspector is not satisfied that the plan meets the soundness test, it cannot be adopted by the local authority.

The new system for plan-making in England, which we intend to start rolling out by the end of this year, is designed to improve the quality and quantity of engagement between local authorities and their communities, infrastructure providers and statutory bodies. New early engagement and timetable requirements will make it easier for interested parties to help shape plans from the very start, and to know when their input will be sought.

As part of reforms to the local plan-making system, MHCLG is considering broadening the range of organisations prescribed as a “specific consultation body”, and to prescribe key infrastructure providers under the new “requirement to assist”. Being prescribed under these duties would see organisations recognised as key stakeholders in shaping plans, ensuring that their input is sought at key points and taken into account in how plans are developed and evidenced.

Following our recent response to the previous Government’s consultation on the implementation of plan-making reforms, we are currently undertaking further targeted engagement with those bodies we intend to prescribe and will set out further details in due course. This will include additional information on the process around the “requirement to assist”, which will enable LPAs formally to request support from the prescribed organisations.

MHCLG provides funding to the Planning Advisory Service to deliver a targeted support programme to help local authorities across England strengthen their approach to infrastructure planning and the governance of developer contributions. That includes assisting local planning authorities in creating effective infrastructure delivery plans through designing model IDPs that guide authorities in outlining their strategies for delivering local infrastructure and allocating developer contributions, alongside other funding sources to support the development of their area.

I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, noble Lords will not press their amendments.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply.

The common theme between the amendments is empowering officials to do their job well. I will pick up an example from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. If an official in the local hospital is only looking up the line to someone in the health department, it is very hard for them to take into account the needs of other aspects of the community.

If there is something in law or secondary legislation—whatever it is, I look forward to seeing it—that the Government produce that says, “You must consult, you must talk to these people and you must take them into account”, that empowers the official to do so. It does not make it happen, but it sets out a structure where we can communicate properly between silos. We can get things done as a community and not in little bits.

I am sure that we can all think of examples of where things would have been done much better if the community had been involved. In fact, we do not need to look much further than our own front door. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has a lot of experience with construction, but when I took one of my friends who is in the industry through the front door and asked him how much he thought it cost, he was at about a 50th of what it was. We were not involved; the community was not consulted. This has been done to us; we were not part of that decision. The same applies to our “HMP Westminster”-style enclosure. I therefore really encourage the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, to work with my noble friends Lord Hayward and Lord Forsyth to see whether we can get our own mechanisms to be rather better than they are.

My Lords, I have commented on the door and had conversations with various people around the House, which was very fascinating as a parable of this problem.

Christine Gilbert was a very good local authority leader who understood the limitations of the state and understood that just the processes and systems alone would not get us there. Something else needed to happen in which the local authority, the NHS and the normal players were obviously key partners. It was about the people and relationships; the machinery was not going to get us there, and she understood that as a very capable leader.

I also felt that the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was good, but I would be grateful if he could send him and us a link to the guidance that he referred to so that we can check through it and understand how it works before Report. In the case of my Amendment, I await the Hillsborough law. If it can do what Amendment 158 is setting out to do and a lot more across government, it will make a huge contribution. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 158 withdrawn.

Amendments 159 to 163 not moved.