The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)

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 If they fall out of date, projects can stall, costs can rise and confidence in the system is eroded.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.