Baroness Taylor of Stevenage:

Moved by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

That the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, to make a few brief comments to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we have discussed the implementation of the issues contained in the levelling-up Act before; however, it would probably help noble Lords if I write a letter setting out when those provisions come into place—I hope that will help all noble Lords. In terms of the noble Lord’s question about the hierarchy and how it would be employed, we wanted to be very clear that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model but has to be expressed in a different way given this move to a strategic approach. We have debated that many times before. The different levels of the hierarchy do not neatly map on to the different types of conservation measures available under an EDP, so we will use regulations to set out how those principles are expressed through the nrf. If I can comment further on the issue raised by the noble Lord, I will write to him or arrange a meeting between us.

I am very grateful to all noble Lords for all their engagement and contributions during the passage of this landmark piece of legislation, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is a complex piece of legislation. I have been very grateful for the expertise around the House, which, in the best tradition of this House, has helped to make the Bill better. We have debated the Bill at length and into the early hours on many occasions over the past six months, with many thoughtful and considered contributions. I say a special thank you to my noble friends Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lord Khan of Burnley, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield—he has arrived from his horrendous train journey just in time to hear me thank him—and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for their steadfast support in taking this Bill forward. I know they echo my thanks to Members across this House.

I also thank my Honourable Friend in the other place, the Minister for Housing and Planning, who has taken a lot of time to talk to Peers about their concerns. I am grateful in particular to the Opposition front bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for their robust and constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. In a similar vein, I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Parminter and Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their continued engagement and contributions during the debate.

Many noble Lords have generously lent their time and expertise, including many here around the Chamber, and I am very grateful to all of those who have contributed. While there may be disagreement on some of the issues we have debated, I know we all share the same aim of unlocking economic growth and getting this country building again. I believe that we are in broad agreement that this Bill represents a critical milestone in achieving this objective, alongside doing what we can to enhance our environment as we go on that journey.

Finally, I am very grateful to all the officials and members of the Bill team, who have worked tirelessly on this Bill behind the scenes: Holly Harper, Isabelle, Lucy, Tom, Daria, Fatima, Guy and Sam. I of course thank my brilliant private office, without whom I would not be doing anything. I also pay tribute to all the parliamentary staff, including the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard and the Public Bill Office, many of whom have stayed late—sometimes very late—as we debated this Bill into the early hours.

My Lords, I know that the Commons will consider amendments to this Bill on Thursday. I genuinely hope that the Government strongly and carefully consider the contributions noble Lords have made during this Bill, particularly on Amendment 130, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown.

On the advice of the clerks, I speak at this point to put on record my concerns about the Clause 20(3) statement that was put in the Bill by both the Minister and former Secretary of State. It is a matter that is being considered in the courts right now—whether it is justiciable or not. As a former Secretary of State for Defra, my understanding is that it almost certainly would be. However, it turns out that the Government and House of Commons do not believe it is, but that it is a parliamentary proceeding. That is why I want to express my concerns about not only this Bill but how we consider this element in future Bills.

I do not say this lightly, because I am conscious of what the Office for Environmental Protection has said, but it is one reason why I have tabled Questions to the Senior Deputy Speaker and the Minister. With that I hope that we will see a Bill enacted in due course that will enhance the environment, rather than my concerns about what Part 3 will do to it.

My Lords, this has been a challenging Bill. Over eight days in Committee and five on Report, we have examined it in extraordinary detail, with early mornings and late nights. Yet, despite the effort, it still falls short of the Government’s stated ambitions. The scale of late-stage amendments, with 67 tabled on Report—and even two more today, which we supported—speaks to a Government with no clear plan to deliver the homes we need. At the last election, the Government pledged to deliver 1.5 million new homes, yet construction output continues to decline, falling by 0.3% in August following no growth at all in July. That is hardly the sign of a system ready to meet its targets.

This Bill, regrettably, does not confront the real blockages to delivery. From the outset, we on these Benches have sought to focus on substance: the practical and legal barriers that genuinely hold back new housing, such as the Hillside judgment, the absence of proportionality in planning enforcement, restrictions linked to Ramsar sites and the complexities surrounding nutrient neutrality rules. These are the real challenges confronting developers, councils and communities seeking to build, not the voices and views of local people that are being curtailed. These are the issues that matter; the measures that would build homes, infrastructure and hope for millions still locked out of home ownership.

I wish to acknowledge the diligent scrutiny that my noble friend Lord Roborough has brought to the Defra-related clauses in this Bill. His thoughtful and consistent engagement has ensured that the environmental considerations have been debated with the seriousness they deserve.

Beyond the legal and regulatory hurdles lies a deeper challenge: economic viability and confidence. Housebuilding has been weakened, not only by the planning constraints but by the economic uncertainty in recent years. The Home Builders Federation’s State of Play report makes this clear. Some 67% of respondents said that the business environment itself is now a major barrier to delivery, while 89% report being less optimistic about their prospects than before the 2024 General Election. The increasingly complex and costly taxation and regulatory framework is cited as the third-largest barrier to getting homes built. The industry itself is willing to build but finds itself constrained by uncertainty, instability, and the absence of a clear and consistent growth strategy.

When the Minister last responded to me at the Dispatch Box, she leaned on the common refrain that we had 14 years. In the last Parliament, we built 1 million homes and delivered the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, legislation that I was proud to take through this House. Can the Government, hand on heart, say that they are proud of this Bill in the same way? Between April and June this year, around 700 planning applications for residential development were granted—the lowest three-month figure since 1979. That is not a record to celebrate.

Throughout this Bill, we tried to ensure that debate in this House remained constructive and solution focused. Our amendments offered practical ways forward: measures to release land, unlock permissions and get homes built where they are most needed. Instead, the Government have defended a Bill that promises reform but risks further delay. Britain cannot afford another plan that overpromises and underdelivers. Our country needs homes, infrastructure and renewed confidence, not another framework that leaves us standing still.

I place on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for the time she has taken to engage outside the Chamber, for her openness to discussion and for the considerable work she has done in steering this Bill through the House. I know how demanding that process can be, and her endurance and professionalism have been greatly appreciated across your Lordships’ House.

I thank my noble friends for their support over the many hours in this Chamber and all Members across the Chamber who have engaged seriously, generously and with good spirit throughout. In particular, I put on record my thanks to my noble friends Lord Jamieson, Lord Moylan, Lord Blencathra and Lady Bloomfield for their contributions from this Dispatch Box on this Bill. I thank the staff who, over many late nights and early mornings, looked after us so well. Last but not least, I thank our team—Sam, Molly, Hannah and Henry —for their exemplary support, as always.

This Bill may not yet deliver the clarity and ambition our country needs, but our debates have at least shown that your Lordships’ House remains committed to building a planning system worthy of that task.

My Lords, this Bill is very much part of our plan to deliver. We inherited a sclerotic system and we will get Britain building again, fixing the foundations so that we can deliver both the housing and infrastructure that we need and protect our environment at the same time. We have already committed to funding the planning sector, supporting the skills agenda in the construction industry, sorting out the building safety regulator—great progress is being made there already—and providing a package of support for SME builders, who definitely deserve our confidence as they have found themselves neglected and left out in the cold for the past few years. We want to get Britain building again. We all need to work together on this mission—it is something for all of us to get involved in—and I look forward to working with noble Lords from across the House.

The noble Baroness mentioned there being 67 amendments. I hope she realises that there is an irony in first accusing the Government of not listening and then accusing us of putting forward too many amendments. We were listening. Many of those amendments were technical in nature, responding to some of the devolution aspects of the Bill, but those that responded to what noble Lords have said have, I hope, received the support of the House. That said, I thank all noble Lords for all their contributions and commend the Bill to the House.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.