Baroness Taylor of Stevenage:

Moved by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Commons consider a more streamlined process of Parliamentary scrutiny is more appropriate to apply to an amendment of a national policy statement which reflects relevant published government policy, changes to (or the coming into force of) relevant legislation, a change to a published document referred to in a national policy statement or a relevant decision in court proceedings.

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D, E and E1, which are grouped together. It is a great pleasure to bring the Planning and Infrastructure Bill back to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place.

A number of further commitments were made last week, which, where relevant, I will repeat today. I will first discuss amendments that relate to the provision of infrastructure in this country. Before doing so, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussions between Report and today’s ping-pong.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has tabled an Amendment that would reinstate the requirement for the Government to respond to any resolutions of Parliament, or Select Committee recommendations, when making certain material changes to a national policy statement. This amendment risks undermining a core aim of the Bill: to keep national policy statements up to date swiftly and effectively. The reflective amendment procedure is not a shortcut to avoid scrutiny; it is a practical tool, accompanied by commitments to work with Select Committees, to ensure that NPSs can be updated without undue delay to reflect published government policy, legislative updates, a court decision or a change to a published document referred to in the statement.

National policy statements are the backbone of the NSIP regime. They unlock billions in private investment, create jobs and drive sustainable growth. If they fall out of date, projects can stall, costs can rise and confidence in the system is eroded.

As noble Lords know, Clause 1 already guarantees robust oversight by requiring all NPSs to be reviewed at least every five years, with the oldest NPSs required to be updated within two years of the clause coming into effect. We expect that updates to the five NPSs in this transitional category will undergo full parliamentary scrutiny, and Select Committees will play a central role. But where changes relate to specific types of updates, such as reflecting government policy and aligning with legislation or court rulings, the reflective amendment route ensures that the process is proportionate while maintaining accountability.

To address concerns raised in both Houses, the Government have made clear commitments. We will notify the relevant Select Committee at the start of any consultation. We will lay a Statement in Parliament explaining how the changes meet the statutory definition. Ministers will make themselves available to give evidence during that period. If a Select Committee publishes a report during the consultation period, the Government will take its recommendations into account. These safeguards ensure transparency and respect for Parliament. The chair of the Commons Liaison Committee has already said she is reassured that the Select Committee corridor will be treated with the respect it deserves.

Let me emphasise that this procedure will only apply to changes that reflect published policy, legislative amendments or court decisions. Even then, Parliament retains the ultimate safeguard. The draft NPS must be laid for 21 sitting days before it can take effect. This is a balanced, proportionate approach. It keeps the NPSs current, supports infrastructure delivery and preserves Parliament’s ultimate authority, ensuring that oversight remains robust and meaningful.

Amendments 2A and 3 seek to insert additional requirements relating to heritage consents and community engagement for reservoir NSIP applications. I greatly respect the concerns about the impact of reservoir NSIPs on communities and heritage, so ably explained in the course of our debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, recalling villages in Northumbria, the Lake District and Wales that were submerged for projects such as Rutland Water and Kielder Water. While these reservoirs provide vital water and local pride, they came at great cost. Securing safeguards for heritage and for communities is essential when considering major infrastructure projects. Heritage underpins our tourism and economy and is irreplaceable. It must be managed effectively through our planning system.

The historic cases I mentioned arose before today’s planning framework. We now have the Planning Act 2008 and a suite of supporting secondary legislation and guidance which ensures the thorough evaluation of nationally significant infrastructure projects and their impacts.

Section 33 of the Planning Act removes the need for separate consents to be obtained for works affecting listed buildings or monuments, instead creating a unified consent in the development consent order if granted. A number of protections, including in legislation, are embedded in that consenting process. These ensure that the NSIP process does not represent a dilution of heritage protections, while ensuring the regime is a one-stop shop for consent.

First and foremost, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets when deciding applications. The Secretary of State must comply with the obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations. Decisions must also be made in accordance with the national policy statements, subject to limited exceptions. The water resources NPS applies to dams and reservoirs and contains dedicated policy on the historic environment, requiring weight to be given to conservation and recognising that heritage assets cannot be replaced.

This NPS defines heritage assets and explains that some have a level of significance that justifies official designation. This explicitly includes world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, and conservation areas.

Applicants are also required, where applicable, to include information about heritage impacts when they submit their applications for development consent. Where an environmental impact assessment is required, they must assess impacts as part of this. But it is not solely applicants and the Secretary of State who are responsible for consideration of heritage. Historic England is a statutory body required to be notified by the applicant of a decision to accept an application for examination. Statutory bodies are given the opportunity to make a relevant representation. If they do so, they are classified as “interested parties” and would be engaged, with opportunities to provide views to the examining authority, during the NSIP examination process.

I am confident that the NSIP system provides numerous sufficient protections for the heritage assets of this country. However, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House today, and as such, I am happy to commit to review the “historic environment” section of the water NPS to consider both the advice provided to the applicant and required considerations of the Secretary of State. Given the numerous additional protections and commitments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is sufficiently reassured and that he will not insist on his Amendment 2.

On the impact of reservoirs on communities, before we get to the substance of the amendment, I want to briefly note that it is legally flawed. The amendment misconstrues the process for a dam or reservoir project entering the NSIP regime; most of the time such projects automatically enter the NSIP regime as a Section 14(1)(m) project when the criteria set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act are met.

I none the less want to emphasise that the voices and contributions of people living in affected areas are vital to the effective delivery of projects and the legitimacy of the NSIP system. Following changes proposed to pre-application consultation through the Bill, the Government will publish new guidance setting clear expectations on engagement with those affected in the NSIP application process.

Let me be clear: at the forefront of this guidance will be an expectation that engagement is undertaken early, when voices can and do make a real difference to projects. This should be offered in a variety of ways, including in person, to be accessible and allow affected persons to share their views about the development and the impact it will have.

NSIP applicants have a responsibility towards those affected by their proposals and should be present and visible to local communities to ensure accountability to them during the development and examination of applications. The requirement for an applicant to publicise a proposed application is preserved in the Planning Act 2008. The Act continues to ensure that people are notified during pre-application. Those affected persons will be notified if an application is accepted for examination.

Opportunities to be heard do not stop there. Statutory provisions guarantee participation throughout the process. Local authorities are invited to produce local impact reports, bringing forward local knowledge and setting out impacts of the development, which the Secretary of State must have regard to in deciding the application. The system also provides opportunities for individuals to participate, both through making a relevant and/or written representation and making oral representations at hearings. Those whose land is being acquired have an automatic right to request a hearing and have their voice heard.

While these amendments raise important points, the existing framework already provides strong protections. Nevertheless, to provide further assurances, and in recognition of the importance of the issues raised, the Government will commit to bring forward the next water NPS update to consider community engagement for reservoir and dam projects.

The Secretary of State will consider how best to reflect expectations around early and effective engagement with impacted residents, particularly where projects may involve significant demolition or disruption, to ensure that local communities and impacted individuals’ voices are heard. This will include consultation with stakeholders on whether greater policy guidance is required to ensure that our planning system remains rigorous, responsive and inclusive. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and that she will agree to no longer insist on her amendment.

Amendments 31A and 31B relate to accessible charging and seek to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points. I say a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his constructive engagement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their contributions on this matter. The Government tabled an amendment in lieu which includes some changes that go slightly further than the original amendment. Reflecting the feedback from industry and other stakeholders, the Government’s amendment ensures that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points. They also ensure that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering accessible charge points. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 already gives the Government powers to require the sharing of accessibility data, so we have not included this.

This amendment applies to Great Britain. The Northern Irish Ministers did not wish for this amendment, which relates to a transferred matter, to extend to them. They are able to bring forward their own legislation. The UK Government will work with Northern Ireland and wishes to minimise divergence of standards across the United Kingdom. I appreciated the very interesting debate that we had in this House, led by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and hope that this meets all the noble Lord’s concerns on this issue.

Turning finally to Amendment 32, the Government recognise the impact that water stress has on communities, including farmers and sports clubs, as well as the role that low-hazard reservoirs can play in mitigating such issues. I recognise the wider point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that urgent action is required. The Government will respond to the Cunliffe recommendations in full via a white paper that will be published later this year. It will outline the Government’s vision for the future of the water sector, marking the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Defra Science Search website. Updated data will be published following consultation and decisions on the details of proposed reforms.

I am happy to confirm that the Housing Minister committed in the other place to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Minister went further, committing to provide clarity to farmers about when the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs can be used. This would be achieved by updating the relevant planning practice guidance. Providing further information and clarity about precisely when this permitted development right can be relied on, and what conditions and limitations apply, will support the amendment’s aim of enabling farmers to construct these reservoirs.

We support the objective of this amendment. Of the two actions proposed, the first action has already been completed. The Government have committed to deliver the second within the timeframe set out in the original amendment. We have also gone further and committed to clarifying guidance on the permitted development right that supports the construction of on-farm reservoirs. I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, feels able not to insist on her amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have tabled Motion B1. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has set out about it. We have made great progress in relation to many of the heritage aspects of this Bill, not least in the rewriting of Clause 41, which had caused such consternation for heritage groups across the country. I am grateful to the Government for taking that away and rewording it as they did earlier in our deliberations on this Bill.

The section that we are discussing relates to reservoirs. That we are still discussing it in this way is because it was inserted in the Bill rather later in the process. I was perplexed as to why, given the progress that we made in rewriting Clause 41, relating to infrastructure projects conducted under the Transport and Works Act, the same protections and caution were not given to heritage assets when it came to the Government’s new proposals on reservoirs.

I am grateful for the recognition the Minister has given that heritage assets cannot be replaced if they are lost. By definition, if we are submerging assets underwater through such large-scale projects as reservoirs, the risk is significant, particularly if we are relaxing the rules about who can carry out some of these works. A lot of the concerns that we had were around this being delegated potentially to international companies that are not rooted in the UK and so are not, perhaps, bothered about aspects of our heritage that really matter to communities. We want to be vigilant here.

The Minister very kindly sent us a letter this afternoon—it came through at 1.34 pm, so about four hours ago—which said:

“We recognise the importance of thorough and early engagement with communities and are considering what further commitments can be made to reassure the House that this measure contains sufficient safeguards”.

Are those “further commitments” what she has just said from the Dispatch Box about taking away the water sections of the NSIP system? If so, it would be helpful if she could set out a bit more about the timeframe. Is she intending to do that before the Bill gets Royal Assent? If not, when might we see the outcome of her deliberations? It would be helpful to have that. I am grateful to her for looking at this further and for the recognition that she has given about the irreplaceability of our heritage if it is submerged underwater.

My Lords, I am grateful for the informal meeting I had with the Minister last week. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in relation to my Motion E1, and I too will refer in a moment to the letter received. I am compounded by the fact that my train was late. This time a van had collided with a bridge, but, fortunately, there was no lasting damage and no-one was hurt, not like the Selby rail disaster. Then, I found that they have changed the classic Outlook to modern Outlook, and I could not load my emails. But I am very grateful for having had sight of the letter.

The Minister will be aware that the Toddbrook reservoir failed on 1 August 2019. Since that time, the Balmforth review was set up, but it is not due to report until 2027. My concern as regards large reservoirs is that the Government do not seem to be displaying any sense of urgency. I am mindful of how much reservoirs cost to build, even in spite of NSIPs under the Bill before us this evening, and that there are other barriers to overcome. The Minister may or may not be aware that each individual reservoir has to be signed off by a panel engineer. There is a chronic shortage of panel engineers, and I do not know that that is being addressed by the Government any time soon. My understanding—I have tracked this since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was adopted—is that the de minimis rules allowing a small on-farm reservoir require legislation to amend the de minimis rule to make sure that these on-farm, non-hazardous reservoirs can be constructed.

I take some comfort and great heart from what the Minister said when speaking to Motion E1 this evening, but I do not know that the issues that I have raised, both in Committee and on Report, have actually been addressed. The Minister referred to guidance being published. Can she confirm whether or not that is statutory? Just so those seeking to construct such reservoirs are very clear on it, what will the status of that guidance be? When will the actual guidance to which she referred be published?

Having made those remarks, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House, depending on what reassurance the Minister is able to give me. I put it to her informally last week that this Amendment is designed to help the Government.

In June, the Environment Agency published its National Framework for Water Resources, which called for measures to curb the water deficit, including building more reservoirs, in the light of the potential public water shortages of 5 billion litres of water a day by 2055. We in Yorkshire are very conscious of the fact that the reservoirs have still not filled up since the drought this year. We have every prospect of a drought continuing into next year. The efforts to extinguish and control the wildfire on the North Yorkshire Moors were hampered by the lack of access to water. It was also the case that it was difficult for crops—arable and horticultural—to have access to water, and there was difficulty around the availability of watering for livestock.

These are very real urgent issues. I am afraid that the reason given by the Commons for failing to agree to Amendment 32 is very thin. We are told that it is not

“necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs”.

I have set out this evening the reason for urgency and why this is a very real issue. I believe we need to write in the Bill the concerns I have set out.

My Lords, I will speak to Motion B and Motion B1, which is the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lords Amendment 2A, which has been sent back to us, in effect puts the Planning Act 2008 back into the position it was originally in. To that extent, it is not so objectionable. But we are looking to ensure, as my noble friend eloquently presented, both now and on Report, that when these decisions are being made we take full account of the protections that should be available for irreplaceable heritage assets.

In addition to the assurances about national policy statements that the Minister has given to my noble friend, I ask her whether she will look at the guidance, which Clause 7(2) provides for, that can be given about the preparation of local impact reports, which as she will know are a material factor in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008. If that guidance makes it clear that the local impact report must make specific reference to the heritage assets that are to be affected, and to the impact on not only those assets themselves but their environment, that might highlight any potential adverse impacts for when the Secretary of State has to weigh up the adverse impacts against the benefits under the Section 104 decision. I hope that the Minister might add that to the ways in which the assurances might be bolstered to protect heritage assets.

My Lords, I support Motion E1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In particular, I agree with her about the level of urgency and the slow progress that has been made on this, and about the de minimis rules, which need thoroughly updating to make it more possible to avoid drought situations. I have just one question for the Minister. She referred to a paper appearing later this year. Does she mean this calendar year—in which case it would be just in time for my Christmas stocking?

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Amendments 31A and 31B, which is very similar, as she said, to Amendment 31, which I proposed.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is a practical transport expert—he knows how to mend a bus—as I hope I am, although his expertise is wider than mine, which is based on taxis. I hope that he will agree that success does not come from changing the law alone but will come when disabled people are not limited in their use of charging systems for electric cars. Today, no doubt, there are people struggling with chargers that have steps that could be designed out and cables that are too heavy. Success can be declared when charging infrastructure is no longer a barrier to the purchase of a car for a disabled person.

Again, I apologise for the inelegant way in which this amendment was proposed at Third Reading; an amendment in Committee would have been more elegant. However, I am glad that this necessary amendment has been made. I look forward to the regulations being promulgated with lightning speed, and actual accessible charging points being seen widely even more quickly.

My Lords, in this first group of amendments, I am delighted that the Government have acceded to the Amendment about accessible electric vehicle charging points that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, just spoke to. That is really good news.

Of the other three amendments that we are thinking about, two concern reservoirs—building them and what their impact will be. The first, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about ensuring that the statutory requirements to protect our heritage are considered in full in the planning application for a new reservoir. The other, from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned about whole villages being drowned. Then we have the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is anxious that we build more reservoirs, so we have a bit of a dilemma here.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. All through the debate on this Bill, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been wholeheartedly in support of shoring up the statutory requirements to protect our national heritage. It is unfortunate that the Minister has been unable to accede to the amendment that was passed on Report to provide even greater support for those heritage sites and buildings that may be destroyed to create a reservoir—especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has pointed out, since third parties, even companies based abroad, may now be able to build reservoirs. They may not have such a great concern for our heritage as those of us who live in this country. That is a great shame, and if the noble Lord wanted to move his amendment to a further vote, we on these Benches would support him.

I will wait to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says about her Motion C1 and whether she wishes again to test the opinion of the House on that one.

On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I thought the Minister gave quite a lot of assurance that the Government are considering making changes to regulations regarding the building of low-hazard reservoirs, which is what the amendment is about. That seemed perfectly acceptable, given that a great deal of thought has to be given to creating reservoirs. As we discovered in Derbyshire when the Toddbrook one failed, volumes of water can be devastating if dams and reservoirs are breached. With those remarks, I look forward to the comments from the Conservative front bench.

My Lords, before turning to the specifics of the amendments before us, I will restate what has guided our approach throughout the passage of the Bill. We recognise the legislation’s importance to the Government and their desire to see it completed in time for the Budget. From the outset, we on these Benches have worked diligently and constructively, through the usual channels and beyond, to help ensure timely progress. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for acknowledging these efforts, particularly in the light of unhelpful and misleading briefings to the contrary, most recently in the Observer yesterday.

Yet constructive engagement has not meant compromising on scrutiny. We moved swiftly through Committee, focused interventions where they mattered most and engaged extensively to set out concerns clearly and robustly. Where the Bill needed strengthening, we made the case firmly, and between Report and ping-pong we engaged with the Government in an attempt to secure meaningful change. While some issues have been revisited, many of which will be discussed today, progress has been more limited than we had hoped. That is disappointing, although we understand that further opportunities will arise through future legislation, including the next planning and nature Bills. In light of that, and given time constraints, we will not press further amendments for Commons consideration. We welcome ongoing discussions between the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the Minister to ensure streamlined parliamentary scrutiny.

I turn to Amendment 3—the most difficult part of this group, in our opinion. We first tabled this amendment to ensure that the Government confronted not just procedural mechanics but the human reality when an entire village faces demolition. These are not theoretical planning units; they are communities, histories and homes. When a nationally significant project puts more than 20 homes at risk, the disruption is profound and very personal.

We have brought this amendment back because affected communities should be told early and given a meaningful chance to make their case before a scheme enters the NSIP regime. Since then, the Minister has provided detailed assurances and strengthened guidance on early accessible engagement, clearer visibility and accountability from applicants, and an earlier review of the water national policy statement. These commitments are welcome and significant, but we still believe they do not go as far as we had hoped. They fall short of the statutory protections that we believe communities facing total upheaval deserve, but it is clear that this is as far as the Government are willing to go at this stage. Although that is disappointing, we have reached the limits of the changes that can realistically be achieved to the Bill.

I do not wish to hold up the wider Bill. The Government need this legislation, and the country needs the infrastructure and the housing that it supports. While disappointed, I am grateful to the Minister for listening and moving, even if it was not as far as we might have wished. For these reasons, with real regret but with pragmatism, I will not press Amendment 3 today.

Motion E1 was tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, highlight the practical and regulatory burdens around low-hazard reservoirs. My noble friend Lady McIntosh’s expertise on water management is well known and respected, and her determination to ensure proportionate regulations has been welcomed throughout the Bill’s passage. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, complements this, reinforcing a balanced approach that would protect communities while avoiding unnecessary procedural delays. I also acknowledge my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, whose Motion B1 seeks to ensure that regulatory changes are implemented with care, transparency and parliamentary oversight. Together, these amendments reflect a shared concern. The drive to streamline regulation should not compromise local communities, environmental safeguards or the robustness of the planning process.

We welcome the Government’s assurances on strengthening pre-application consultation guidance and the early water NPS review, but stronger statutory backing would have been preferable. Although we do not wish to hold up the Bill, as I have said, it remains disappointing that the Government are not prepared to go further, given the risks to residents and communities.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have engaged constructively, sought meaningful improvements and pressed repeatedly for stronger protections. Some progress has been made, but far less than we would have hoped. Many issues remain unresolved, and the Government appear unwilling to go further, which is disappointing. Our approach reflects the reality that we do not wish to block the Bill, but we cannot ignore the limits of the assurances received. It is important for the House to hear that, although engagement has taken place, the outcomes fall short of full safeguarding, fairness, accountability and hearing the community voice.

Before I sit down, I reiterate that quite a few of our amendments would have delivered the much-needed homes and infrastructure that are the purpose of the Bill.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful for their engagement on the important matters that have been the subject of this group. I will address noble Lords’ points individually.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I refer to all the protections I set out earlier as part of the Government’s reassurance that we take very seriously the conservation of heritage buildings. He asked me about timeframes. It was the intention that the water NPS would not be done until 2030 but I am prepared to commit to him that we will bring it forward to 2026 so that we can make sure that this is addressed quickly to give clarity to all those concerned. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord, and that that protection, and the bringing forward of the review to next year, will enable him not to press his Amendment.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, I very much appreciate the long-standing expertise and commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to addressing some of the pressing water management issues that have been around for decades. I understand her impatience about the time it has taken to deal with some of them. On the urgency, I draw her attention to the fact that the Cunliffe review was completed this year, and the Government have already undertaken to produce a water white paper by the end of the year, so we are not hanging around in dealing with this. Once the appropriate consultation on the White Paper has been done, we will bring forward legislation in a water Bill to deal with it. I hope that that lets the noble Baroness know that the Government do not want these issues to continue to hang around for decades. We want to deal with this issue; we take it seriously. I know that my colleagues in Defra deal with it daily.

The NPS for water resources infrastructure, designated in September 2023 and amended in 2025, sets out the need for and the Government’s policies for all nationally significant water resources infrastructure projects—that is, large reservoirs and transfer schemes. It explains that the need for the infrastructure is set out in water company statutory water resources management plans and explains the assessment principles that any DCO application for qualifying water resources projects must satisfy. For projects that fall under the NSIP regime, automatically or by direction, and within the NPS’s scope, the Secretary of State must determine the application in accordance with the NPS. It is important that NPSs are in place as quickly as possible so that we can determine applications in accordance with them, unless there are prescribed compelling reasons not to do so. The policy therefore ensures that long-term water supply resilience and national infrastructure are embedded in the consenting framework.

On the reservoirs the noble Baroness was referring to, we will get that into the planning practice guidance as soon as is practicable. I am happy to work with her on that as we move forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised the issue of local impact statements. He is quite right to say that, as part of the Planning Act 2008, relevant local authorities will be invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of proposed developments on the authority’s area. The Government are considering responses to our recent consultation on guidance on and engagement with NSIPs. This includes guidance to local authorities on local impact reports. We will carefully consider what the guidance can say to address concerns about the heritage impact issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Water White Paper will be this calendar year—I hope before Parliament breaks for recess, but I do not want to commit my Defra colleagues further than they have given me licence to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised issues concerning reservoirs. The national policy statement would protect those reservoirs and make sure that we have an obligation to do so. As I have explained many times, although the national policy statements are not in themselves the matter of primary legislation, because they have to change and be adaptable to circumstances, they do carry the full weight of the planning system in legal terms. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that that protection is in place.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. She is completely right: we need to get this Bill through so that we can start on the infrastructure projects and the housebuilding that we need. As the Minister responsible for these issues in this House, the human reality she talks about and the disruption faced by communities is absolutely not lost on me. As we go through the process of strengthening the guidance and bringing forward an early review of the NPS on water, we will take full account of the need to ensure that communities are protected in the way she so admirably championed throughout consideration of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.

Motion A agreed.