Grand Committee
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 27 April. The Government were clear in our manifesto that housing need in England cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale and that we would introduce new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. To that end, the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which received Royal Assent last December, legislated for the reintroduction of an England- wide system of strategic plan-making.
The Act inserted a new Part 1A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, placing a duty on strategic planning authorities to prepare a spatial development strategy. An SDS will form part of the development plan to which local planning authorities must have regard when determining planning applications unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local plans will be required to be in general conformity with the relevant spatial development strategy. SDS are high-level plans that will define the overall scale and distribution of growth and development across an area, including the potential need for regeneration and environmental protection or enhancement. They may identify broad locations for development and the infrastructure required to support it, and can redistribute housing and other development needs between local planning authorities.
These regulations will make two minor, consequential amendments to support the implementation of this new system, which we intend to commence later this year. They will amend Section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 so that SDS examinations are classed as statutory inquiries within the meaning of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, enabling the Lord Chancellor to make rules related to the procedure to be followed during the examination of an SDS. They will also amend the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that marine planning authorities must notify strategic planning authorities of their intention to start preparing a marine plan. Strategic planning authorities are the local government bodies that will be responsible for preparing an SDS.
Unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise, a draft spatial development strategy must be examined by a person appointed by them. The matters to be examined are for the examiner to determine. However, the draft National Planning Policy Framework sets out that the purpose of the examination should be to assess that relevant procedural requirements have been met and that the strategy is sound, alongside any other matters that the examiner considers appropriate.
Regulation 2 will amend Section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to allow the Lord Chancellor to make rules, under Section 9 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, governing the procedures for examinations. Any such regulations will support the effective examination of a strategy.
Regulation 3 will amend paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to require a marine plan authority to notify a strategic planning authority whose area adjoins or is adjacent to marine plan areas of its intention to prepare a marine plan. This requirement already extends to local planning authorities and will enable strategic planning authorities to consider how they wish to participate in the marine planning process and to put in place appropriate arrangements for that participation.
This is the first part of a wider package of secondary legislation that we are preparing to support the implementation of the new system of strategic plan-making. Other statutory instruments, which we intend to make in the autumn, will include regulations that will make further consequential amendments to secondary legislation, rules on the procedure to be followed during an examination, and regulations setting out the procedure to be followed in connection with the preparation of a spatial development strategy. I trust that the Committee agrees that these minor, consequential regulations are necessary and will support the effective implementation of the new system of spatial development strategies. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I wonder if I might intervene at this stage. The Committee will recall—pretty much everybody in the Committee was present during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill’s passage—that, going back to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, I have been very supportive of strategic spatial planning, and we want to see that brought into effect as soon as possible.
I declare my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and as a supporter of and adviser to development forums in other locations, as detailed. For the development community in all those places, one of the consistent messages that comes through is about desirability, not simply of having sub-regional spatial planning at a strategic level, not confined to the territory of one local planning authority generally but embracing several, but of what is afforded by that opportunity—namely, the ability to bring together transport strategies, infrastructure strategies, growth plans and spatial development strategies into one document, which can then help guide and direct the planning infrastructure.
As the Minister helpfully explained, as the Explanatory Memorandum does, this is one of several statutory instruments necessary to bring the procedure of strategic development strategies into place. The Minister said, “in the autumn”, but I want to find out is what is going to happen and when. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that it remains the Government’s intention to publish the response to the consultation on the draft NPPF in July, before recess, so that we can see the final NPPF—without having to wait for the customary publication just before Christmas—and get on with it. On the timetable, I hope that will mean that it will be possible for there to be planning policy guidance published in relation to the preparation of spatial development strategies and for that to happen as soon as possible in the autumn, but certainly, I would have thought, by the end of the year.
Together with the statutory instruments, that will, I hope, enable the Government to set a period during which combined authorities are asked to publish and submit their spatial development strategy timetable to the Secretary of State.
I assume that this will be applied in relation to groups 1 and 2. The Minister and the Committee will recall that, just a little earlier, the Government published a geography of spatial development strategy areas. Groups 1 and 2 are the existing strategic mayoral combined authorities and the devolution priority programme. I am looking for groups 1 and 2 to have their SDS timetables requested to be submitted in the early part of next year at the latest. I would be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee a sense of the complete timetable for SDS.
I turn briefly to the content of the NPPF and the overview. The overview in the draft was not explicit about the requirement in the statute for a spatial development strategy to set out the amount or distribution of housing and the amount or distribution of affordable housing. I have mentioned this in an earlier debate on the English devolution Bill, but I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that the NPPF is being amended to make some of these requirements of a spatial development strategy a bit clearer.
We should be under no illusions about the difficulties that will potentially emerge. We may well have spatial development strategies that are born of an ambitious local growth plan. My own area of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, for example, has a very ambitious growth plan published by Paul Bristow, the mayor. If local authorities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were to assess housing need based simply on the standard method, there would be no way in which the growth plan that the mayor is looking for could be accommodated by the level of housing supply implied. For local plans to be consistent with the spatial development strategy, they will have to go further.
The same may be true for, and considerable questions could be raised by, green-belt policy. For example, Stockport could not agree with the other local authorities in Manchester on a joint development plan, not least because of their difficulties in agreeing on green-belt policy. A spatial development strategy could, according to the guidance published thus far, set out where changes to the green belt need to be considered in local plans, but the local plan would set the boundaries. What happens if a local planning authority seeks to adopt a local plan that does not change the boundary of a green belt? Having considered it and decided not to change it, does that mean that the local plan is consistent with the spatial development strategy or not? As we go along, we have to be increasingly clear about what consistency with the spatial development strategy looks like. I say that because we will have a number of these debates—not necessarily on every statutory instrument—and, as guidance is published, it will bring some of those important issues to the forefront.
I ask the Minister about the follow-up to the geography document. The Committee will recall that, although the geography of many of the combined authorities is established, it is not for others. For example, we simply do not yet know whether Buckinghamshire will be included in Thames Valley or if it will be a single foundation strategic authority. We need to learn more about what the final geography will look like and when we might hear that. Unless we get that information, I do not think strategic planning boards will be established in areas where a mayor and combined authority are not being put in place relatively soon. I hope that there will be a timetable for that, as well.
My final question is prompted by my being up in Warrington yesterday. Liverpool is relatively advanced in the preparation of a spatial development strategy and, as I understand it, is looking to have it examined and adopted next year. Will Liverpool City Region’s spatial development strategy be treated as consistent with the requirements of a spatial development strategy as set out by the Planning and Infrastructure Act? I hope that, because it was designed alongside the SDS for London, it will be and that the Minister will say that, through Liverpool’s SDS, we can begin to see the process of spatial planning being implemented in places across England.
Those are my questions arising from the statutory instrument. I do not want to be thought of as opposing it, in any sense. I support the SI.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend I am certainly not opposed to these regulations; I am very much in favour of spatial planning. I have just one question for the Minister. I thank her very much for setting out so clearly the purport of these regulations and apologise for not being able to give advance notice of this question. It is a bit left field and if she wants to write, I quite understand that. It is in the context of development corporations. I appreciate there is ongoing work on this and that the emphasis may change given the experience of Liverpool. I wonder what the evolving thinking is within the department. Is the Minister able to say something about these measures, which make a massive difference to growth, and how that could impact the Thames estuary, the Solent and so on? I am happy for the Minister to write if that is more convenient.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. I am afraid I am going to break the harmony. The Minister will recall our debates on the previous legislation that my noble friend Lord Lansley rehearsed. I go back to the time I was first elected to the other place—on the same day as my noble friend—in 1997, when the Labour Government introduced regional planning and a regional spatial strategy. I ask the same question now that I asked then: where will the voice of rural areas be heard? Which space will rural areas be occupying? The population of North Yorkshire is 11% of the total population of the region of Yorkshire and the Humber, and yet, with the replacement of districts and boroughs with a combined authority and a mayor, I would say that the rural areas have lost their voice. Over the years of the previous Labour Government—perhaps the next Prime Minister was quite a dominant part of that— I saw that the rural voice was pretty much extinct.
To give an example of why it is important that we consider the rural voice, there is a trend of building four-bedroom or five-bedroom homes, whereas in rural areas what we really need are one-bedroom or two-bedroom homes. Obviously, it is not necessarily of interest to developers to build that type of housing stock. The question then arises: what consultation will there be when these spatial strategies come out?
I have been looking at the pages on North Yorkshire and the surrounding area—York, East Riding and Hull. They have produced a spatial framework looking ahead to 2035 to 2050. I am aware of rural house prices being higher but, until I read that framework report, I was not aware that urban house prices in parts of North Yorkshire and Hull are higher. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that the incomes are predominantly lower in these areas, so there is the challenge of lower wages and higher house prices.
I would like to ask two questions. What consultation will there be, both at national level and at a more strategic level and how, in that consultation, will the rural voice be heard? As we now have a Mayor of York and North Yorkshire—I do not see mayors mentioned, but there must be an answer of which I am not aware —what will the relationship of the mayor be to producing answers to a spatial plan?
I echo my noble friend Lord Lansley’s request that the Government publish the responses to the National Planning Policy Framework. An underlying concern in all of this is that we do not develop areas on the functional flood plain of zone 3b.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as a councillor on a met council that will clearly be affected by these changes.
On the changes to the development of strategic plans, during the course of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill I raised concerns not about the benefits of a strategic plan, which covers a wider area than a local planning authority, but about the way it is to be developed. This comes to the fore again in this instance.
My first query is not what organisation will be responsible for the plan but who will be responsible for the plan. Paragraph 5.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum references a combination of principal authorities and combined authorities. One of my concerns is that these cover widely differing geographic and population sizes. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority covers 2.5 million people, whereas the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, with a mayor, has just a million people. There is a big disparity, which will have an impact on how a wider strategic look at development across an area is considered. It also has an impact on the engagement and involvement of locally elected members and residents who will be affected by the development of the strategic plan. So that is my first concern: who will do it? The Explanatory Memorandum talks about a strategic planning board but, if it is as undemocratic as the combined authority, I would have real concerns.
I will say a bit more about the “who”. We learned from the devolution Bill that, in combined authorities, mayors will be able to appoint up to nine or 10 people —the number escapes me—who will be responsible for different areas of the combined authority and the responsibilities of the mayor. Perhaps the Minister can put me right if I am wrong, but my assumption is that those relevant people—such as those in charge of transport, planning and infrastructure—would be part of the decision-making process and of this strategic planning board. I like democracy, and I am concerned that the plan will be created without due consideration of locally elected people, apart from the mayor—who is just one among many. There is a lack of accountability to local residents who will be directly affected by any plan that is created. I can tell noble Lords, from long experience, that planning is one of the issues that really gets residents concerned and involved, opposing planning decisions where necessary. That is a big area that I am concerned about.
My second concern is this. In the current fairly febrile and volatile nature of our politics, there is clearly a possibility of a significant change of political leadership in these combined authorities—there already was last year. If there is a change of political leadership and the new leadership wants to significantly change the strategic development plan, is that possible?
My third question is about local plans that local planning authorities and councils have already agreed. They potentially have a 15-year lifespan, although they have to be reviewed and updated every five years. Nevertheless, the basic plan and the policies that underpin it are determined. How does a strategic development plan sit with that if they are already in existence? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a similar question. Which one will override the other in this instance?
The fourth issue that I want to understand a bit better is the examination of an SDS. We have here at paragraph 5.7 that the Lord Chancellor will make these rules. But hang on, is that not something that should be determined, for instance, in this sort of forum—that these will be the rules that will determine how an SDS will be examined? To not have that openly discussed, debated and agreed puts a big question mark in my mind about it. When local plans are examined and inspected, yes the planning inspector is appointed by the Government and there are opportunities for representations by those concerned about particular elements of the plan, but that does not seem to be what is being suggested in the brief mention here or by what the Minister said.
Finally, the Minister said that local planning authorities must have regard to—that is a standard planning phrase—and be in general conformity to this. Presumably, that means that local planning authorities and local planning committees can, if they have good, sound reason, disregard the decisions that are made at a strategic development plan level. If not, I do not know why we have local democracy.
Although I am in favour of this and was in favour of the previous iteration of strategic development, at a regional level—it is very helpful to have a wide scheme—there are a lot of questions around how this will operate and who will make the decisions. I hope the Minister can put my mind at ease.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before I start, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which will no doubt at some point be affected by this statutory instrument.
At the outset, we accept the general principle that consequential amendments are a necessary feature of major legislative reform. But, as we debated on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we remain concerned with the increasing centralisation of planning decisions— I think that was something that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised. Strategic planning appears to be part of that strategy: moving decisions away from local councils and local people who know their area best.
We agree with the Government that we need to get Britain building. We are not building enough homes, infrastructure takes too long and costs are too high, and that will require a simpler and streamlined planning system that is clearer and more consistent. The recently released Savills report on housebuilding, which forecasts that only 839,000 houses will be built in the five years of the Labour Government, compared to the target of 1.5 million, just highlights that the system is not working.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all Members for their considered contributions this afternoon. I am grateful to most noble Lords for supporting the overall direction of travel in relation to strategic development strategies. I hope the Committee agrees that the two minor amendments are appropriate. I will try to answer as many questions as I can. For any that I do not answer, I will respond in writing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his broad support for the SDS and I agree with him about sub-regional planning. He probably went through the same process with the East of England Plan that I sat through for many months. Pulling together into one place transport, infrastructure and strategic planning is key to getting the growth that we all want to see.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. I will try to take them in the order he asked them. He asked me whether the SDS will contain affordable housing. The legislation is deliberately permissive, so, if the board wishes, it can specify levels of affordable housing within the plan.
The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about a timetable for the implementation of SDS and strategic planning boards. We intend to lay these SIs in the autumn. I cannot be more specific than that, but that is our intention. The strategic planning board regulations must be subject to consultation before being laid. That probably picks up one of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We anticipate that consultation will be after the Summer Recess and, once that is complete, we will lay the SIs.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked about the publication of the NPPF and whether the SDS overview will include clear requirements for the statutory requirements. We intend to publish the revised NPPF in the summer. While we are considering responses to the consultation, I cannot comment on its content, but the NPPF cannot change the statutory requirements for SDS set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Act. That is important. In the Act that we got after we finally finished, following some very late-night sittings, we set out what an SDS is there to do. It cannot change that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I completely understand that the terminology of the Act says that the spatial development strategy may set out the amount and distribution of housing and affordable housing. My point is that, even the latter, in relation to affordable housing, was not included in the draft NPPF text for PM1 relating to SDS. I think it ought to be in there.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that comment. I will feed that back to the team. It is not completed yet, so I will feed his comments in.
On planning practice guidance for SDS once the NPPF is published, we will consider the need for planning practice guidance, but we need to publish the NPPF first. We will have a look at that once the NPPF is under way.
The noble Lord asked about the group 1 and group 2 SDS areas and the timetable for them to submit an SDS. The period within which the strategic planning authority needs to submit its timetable will be set out in regulations. We anticipate that most SPAs will be asked to submit a timetable within 90 days of the formal commencement of the SDS duty. Assuming that commencement is in the autumn, this will be, as the noble Lord rightly suggested, in the early part of 2027.
There was a question about green belt and where changes to green-belt boundaries may need to be considered but the local plan has set the boundary. What happens if there is a disagreement? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to this as well. Local plans have to be in general conformity with any adopted SDS for the area, and that applies to green belt as it does to any other aspect of an SDS, but that will be tested at the local plan examination. General conformity allows for some inconsistency but not a completely different approach. I suspect that that will be tested in examination processes, and it will be interesting to see where that falls.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, echoed the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the areas for strategic planning boards. We intend to respond to the strategic development strategy area consultation in the summer, setting out the areas that the Government think should produce strategic development strategies. Where boards will be needed, the regulations to establish those boards must be subject to statutory consultation. We anticipate that consultation will happen after the Summer Recess and that, once that consultation has happened, the regulations will be made so that the strategic planning board can formally come into being. That is when the geography finally gets confirmed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked me about Liverpool being well advanced—I say well done to Liverpool for cracking on with the job—and whether this will be adopted under the new NPPF and guidance. We understand that Liverpool SDS is likely to go out to consultation either late this year or early next year and, as such, it will be subject to the policies in the updated NPPF.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked me about development corporations; he has probably heard me say that I am a big fan of them. We discussed them a great deal during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the English devolution Bill. I cannot answer his specific questions around the Solent and the Thames estuary, but I will reply to him in writing on those questions, if that is okay.
The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about rural representation. It would probably be most helpful if I explained the right to be heard at examination. It is quite correct that, unlike the position for local plans, there is no formal right for individuals to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. This is the same approach as that for examinations of, for instance, the London Plan. It is proportionate and effective that that should be the case for strategic plans, but each SDS has to consider its whole area, both urban and rural. So the SDS area consultation proposed, for example, that York and North Yorkshire would do its own plan, on which the mayor would lead.
In practice, experience demonstrates that inspectors take considerable steps to ensure that a wide range of relevant interests and perspectives are heard during, for example, the London Plan examinations. By way of illustration, the most recent examination of a spatial development strategy—the 2019 London Plan—was conducted over 12 weeks, with a participant list extending to 27 pages. I expect that that is why we ended up with the extensive plan that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to.
The Government’s intention is that spatial development strategies operate as those high-level documents, establishing the strategic framework within which the subsequent local plans, which are required to be in general conformity with them, are prepared. Importantly, and in contrast to local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific development sites. It is appropriate that the formal right to appear is preserved for local plan examinations, while examinations of spatial development strategies remain proportionate to their strategic role. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said about people being interested in planning and engaged in it, but my experience is that they are much more engaged when you are discussing the site-level stuff, which is in the local plans, rather than the more esoteric discussions around a strategic plan.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked me some further questions about what the geography of SDS should be. The English Devolution White Paper sets out the criteria for sensible geographies, including the principle that devolution geographies should ensure the effective delivery of key functions such as SDS. So, where mayoral devolution arrangements already exist, it is proposed that these will be used as a basis for producing SDS, with the exception of the West of England Combined Authority, given the discussions on North Somerset’s place in the region.
Where devolution arrangements do not yet exist, we propose to prioritise existing local consensus on geographies for working together where proposals for devolution have previously been submitted to government with full local agreement, provided that these meet the other sensible geography criteria. These include scale—populations over 1.5 million where possible, to create genuinely strategic SDSs—as well as public service boundary alignment and ensuring that no islands are created.
If a future devolution agreement comes forward on a different geography once the geographies of SDS are confirmed, any SDS will have to be amended, reviewed or replaced to fit that new devolution geography. Of course, we have the ambition to align SDS and the devolution geography, but we have to accept that the devolution picture is still emerging. We need to get on with strategic planning, so we may have to make changes in due course to that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Just to be absolutely clear, the Minister used the example of 1.5 million, which clearly Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire do not hit. The Minister is clearly implying that there will have to be a board, not necessarily of those three, but of other geographies. Similarly, Norfolk and Suffolk do not hit those targets.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said, meeting the categories set out in the English devolution Bill is a clear goal. We want to make sure that they work as a spatial development strategy, and they have to meet certain criteria to do that. We want to get on with the job, so we are putting this process in place to deliver it now.
There were a number of questions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on authorities that are required to produce a spatial development strategy. Combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, combined county authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will all have the duty to produce spatial development strategies. These authorities will be known as strategic planning authorities. The Government will be able to group any of these authorities together, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, suggested to jointly produce a spatial development strategy, through a committee known as a strategic planning board.
In most cases, combined authorities or combined county authorities will produce an SDS for their area, and upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will be grouped together under a strategic planning board. However, some upper-tier county councils may produce one individually, and some combined authorities or combined county authorities could be grouped with an authority outside their area under a strategic planning board.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me specifically about brownfield land, and it is a question he has asked me a number of times. I will try to again answer the question. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed as a matter that strategic planning authorities must have regard to. These regulations will be combined with the regulations setting out the procedure for preparation of a spatial development strategy. So, I hope that that has clarified the issue. I hope the Committee will agree that it has considered these regulations.
Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the statutory instrument was laid on 14 May 2026, and it will make a small but important amendment to existing provisions governing key financial decisions, including land disposal and contracts by councils during periods of local government reorganisation. The Government’s programme of reform, set out in the English Devolution White Paper, is designed to transfer power out of Westminster and fix the foundations of local government.
A central part of the programme is local government reorganisation—moving from two-tier structures to single- tier councils, which are simpler, clearer and more accountable to residents. The Government’s long-term vision is for simpler structures, which make it clearer who residents should look to on local issues, with more strategic decisions to support growth and improve public services. Delivering that vision requires not only structural change, but a transition process that is orderly, is legally robust and protects the public interest.
During reorganisation, existing councils will continue to operate while new councils are established, and it is essential that decisions taken in this period do not undermine the position of the successor councils. The framework, therefore, includes safeguards, set out in Section 24 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which enables the Secretary of State to issue directions, controlling certain disposals of land and significant financial commitments.
In specified circumstances where a decision could affect the successor authority, councils must obtain consent before proceeding, typically from the relevant shadow council. These controls will ensure that significant decisions taken during the transition period do not adversely affect successor councils, with specific consents required for higher-risk decisions and general consents enabling routine activity to continue.
This order, made under Section 29 of the Act, makes a targeted amendment to how those safeguards operate. The framework requires councils to consider past disposals of land and contractual dealings when determining whether financial thresholds have been met. Because the beginning of the aggregation period has remained fixed at 31 December 2006, this could require authorities to review nearly two decades of historic decisions. That was not the intention of the policy. The controls were designed to focus on recent and relevant activity in the period leading up to reorganisation, not to impose disproportionate retrospective requirements.
This order updates the beginning of the aggregation period to 31 March 2025, ensuring that the framework captures relevant activity without requiring unnecessarily extensive historic analysis and while leaving the underlying safeguards on disposals of land and contractual dealings unchanged. This is not a change of policy. The underlying safeguards remain unchanged. Rather, the instrument will ensure that those safeguards function as originally intended, providing greater clarity and certainty in their application. It therefore maintains the balance between enabling councils that will shortly be abolished to continue to operate effectively and protecting the interests of successor councils and the public purse.
This amendment was initially identified through engagement with Surrey, but it has been tested with the wider sector, including through engagement with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the department’s Local Government Reorganisation Advisory Group, formed of senior representatives and experts from across local government. It is not a Surrey- specific fix, but a clarification that will apply across the broader reorganisation programme. This instrument supports legal robustness by reducing uncertainty in the operation of the framework and ensuring consistent and effective application across the reorganisation programme. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I repeat my interest, though it is not so specific, of being a councillor, but not on one of the authorities affected. This is an entirely sensible change to make. I have a couple of questions about councils’ retention policies for details. Clearly, the strategic decisions will be retained for ever, but all councils have a policy of ridding themselves of mounds of paperwork, because it is very costly to retain them. I would like to know from the Minister about councils’ retention policies. Given that we are now in a digital age, where retaining such documents is much easier, although still with a cost, have councils had to reconsider their retention policies and what does that mean in practice? For example, there is a seven-year rule for a lot of decisions made by councils, after which material can be disposed of. Clearly, that will not apply to big contractual and budget decisions but, given the nature of this SI, it would be helpful if retention policies for councils’ documents and transactions were universal.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I need to declare again that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although I do not believe we will be impacted by these changes at the moment. At the outset, I make clear that we understand the practical problems that the Government are seeking to address through this instrument. It is sensible that, where local government reorganisation is taking place, there should be safeguards to prevent outgoing authorities from making significant financial commitments that could bind or disadvantage successor councils. The purpose of the Section 24 framework is therefore understandable.
However, while this measure may appear technical, it raises wider issues and questions about the Government’s management of local government reorganisation and the haste with which that programme has been pursued. We are being asked to amend legislation because the existing framework, left untouched for nearly two decades, no longer works in practice. One is bound to ask why this issue was not identified earlier as part of the Government’s work on local government restructuring. Given their determination to accelerate structural reorganisation across large parts of England, what other unforeseen consequences will arise as the process goes through?
Time and again, we are told that these changes to local government restructuring will deliver efficiencies, stronger strategic leadership and better services, yet councils continue to raise concerns about complexity, cost and disruption. Against that backdrop, this statutory instrument feels less like a routine technical adjustment and more like another example of the Government being forced to amend machinery when the train is already moving.
I am also interested in the Government’s decision not to review the financial thresholds. Section 29 provides the power to amend those thresholds, yet, while the aggregation date is being updated from 2006 to 2025, the thresholds of £100,000 and £1 million remain unchanged. There is a significant difference in real terms between the value of £1 million now and its value in 2006. Given that this problem arises because a fixed date was used in the previous legislation, why are we again using a fixed date in these changes to the legislation, rather than one that flexes, for example, with the vesting date of the councils concerned? There is also a question of consultation. The Government refer to discussions with Surrey County Council and other sector experts. It would be helpful to know more about the extent of that engagement.
None of these questions necessarily leads one to oppose the instrument, but they are relevant because this SI is being presented as a practical fix to a problem that has arisen during implementation. Parliament is entitled to understand how that problem emerged and whether similar issues may yet arise elsewhere that maybe should have been thought of earlier. Good government is not simply about having a destination in mind but about ensuring that the route has been properly planned —a comment frequently made by one of the Minister’s noble friends about HS2.
I will also raise a broader issue relating to the Government’s programme of local government reorganisation and devolution. Ministers have repeatedly presented this as a coherent national plan yet, from the outside, it looks increasingly like a programme that is being rewritten as it goes along. Timetables have shifted and elections have been postponed and, in some cases, restored. Local authorities remain uncertain about the final structures that they are expected to implement. That is simply not good enough. This issue matters because we are not discussing an administrative exercise; we are discussing the democratic structures through which millions of people are represented. Elections are not an inconvenience to be moved around whenever they become awkward for government timetables. They are the foundation of democratic accountability.
The Government originally announced in December 2024 that six areas would join the devolution priority programme, with new mayoral institutions expected to follow at pace. Yet mayoral elections that were due to take place in 2026 have been pushed back in several areas until 2028, which I understand is also the date of the mayoral elections of the non-devolution priority programme. We therefore find ourselves in an extraordinary position where the Government are delaying democratic mandates because their own reorganisation programme has failed to keep pace with its promises.
Considering this, and given the increasingly fluid political situation nationally, including widespread speculation about the future direction of government and a new Prime Minister on the horizon—the most likely contender has strong views on devolution—does the current timetable for local government reorganisation and mayoral devolution remain intact? I understand if the Minister might need to write to me after 16 July.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their responses to this statutory instrument. I will try to respond to the questions.
There are no plans to change council retention policies for paperwork, and they are not affected by this SI, so that is not included in this piece of legislation.
I will answer the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made first on local government reorganisation and the management of it. He asked me, first, what other unforeseen consequences we can expect. Well, they are unforeseen, so I am afraid I cannot identify them. If I could, I would have a crystal ball. The timetable for local government reorganisation has not changed. I take the noble Lord’s point about the elections, but that was due to changing legal advice. I spoke to the Local Government Minister this morning and, as far as we are concerned, we are proceeding with the timetable as we had originally set out. We will work through the process for the other 14 areas that have not yet had their local government reorganisation announcements, with a view to making an announcement on them before the Recess. That work is still going on and going ahead.
On the noble Lord’s question about mayoral elections, we decided for very good reasons that it was important that we had established the foundation authorities and that they were working properly before the mayoral elections went ahead. That was the rationale for that decision. But the work is being done to the timetable that we set originally. I hope that is reassuring.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me about the thresholds and why we are not changing them. They are not changing: it is £100,000 for land disposals and certain non-capital contracts and, as he said, £1 million for capital contracts. The thresholds and timing are established features of the Section 24 framework. Those thresholds are intended to capture decisions that could have a material impact on successor authorities, while allowing routine activity to continue without unnecessary delay. The safeguards apply once a shadow authority exists, because that is the point at which there is a clear and accountable body able to give consent on behalf of the future successor council.
The instrument does not change the thresholds or the point at which the safeguards apply; it ensures that they operate as intended in practice. They are intended as broad indicators of material financial decisions, rather than precise limits. The key issue raised by the councils that we spoke to was not the thresholds but how they operate in practice with the existing aggregation period start date, which was onerous on councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me why the amendments are needed, which relates to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The issue was identified during implementation planning, including in Surrey, and it has been tested with the wider sector. Under the current framework, authorities have to look over an extended historic period when assessing whether thresholds are met, and that is not proportionate. Without the update, councils would be required to review that over the long period, and that could result in inconsistent application across areas and create an unnecessary administrative burden for councils.
It may further cause a risk to the effective management of public assets and finances during reorganisation. There is also a potential risk that historic land disposals could be rendered void and historic contracts could become unenforceable. It would also make safeguards much more difficult to apply in practice. Under Section 28, land disposals made in contravention of a direction are void, and contracts entered into in contravention of a direction are unenforceable, so we must avoid that happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked me to expand further on the consultation that was done as part of this process. I set out in my introduction that we tested this through engagement with councils and the wider sector; we have a sector advisory group, which contains experts in these types of areas, including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, so that we make sure that what we are doing is practical and sustainable. I hope that that responds to the questions.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her responses, but I just wanted a little clarity on three of the questions that I asked. The first is on the impact of inflation. Roughly speaking, inflation has almost doubled, so £50,000 spent in 2006 is the equivalent of £100,000 now—not quite, but in approximate terms. That is a significant change. As we are updating the regulations, and the purpose in 2006 was to capture the important spend, it will now capture a lot more than the important spend. That was the point I was trying to make. I completely agree with why it is being put; I do not have any issue with that.
Secondly, one could argue that a mistake was made in 2006; we should not have had a fixed date or it should have been updated in the interim. I asked why we are not looking at a date that might relate to, say, vesting or something else, which might seem more rational.
Thirdly, I was also curious about the response on the timing of elections—and please correct me if I have got it wrong, because I may very well have. My understanding is that the elections for the original six priority mayoral areas will be in 2028, as will the 14 follow-ons—as I call them. The Minister said that that was in order to allow the foundation authorities to have the time to set up and get organised. I appreciate that the following 14 are not foundation, but they will operate to a much tighter timetable. That seems to be a bit of an incongruity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the subject of the amounts, I take the noble Lord’s point about inflation, but these amounts are intended to act as broad indicators of material financial decisions, not precise limits. It is relevant to keep the same amounts in place; it makes the amount at which they have to be referred reasonable and that is a rational way of doing things.
On his point around the date, if we did not have a specific date, it might complicate the accountancy practices. I will look into that and come back to him on that point.
On the issues around the mayoral elections, the decision was made to make sure that we have the new authorities vested and in place, with a chance to establish themselves. They are delivering key public services. There is a lot of work to do, as the noble Lord has pointed out to me on many occasions—and I properly understand that point—before the mayoral elections take place. We know that it is a tight timetable but, to be honest, in my 30 years in local government, nobody has bitten the bullet and sorted this out. It is time we got the foundations of local government into single unitary authorities, so that everybody across the country has the same type of local authority. That is why we are moving forward at pace with the timetable.
To conclude, the instrument makes a small but necessary technical amendment to ensure that existing safeguards on financial decisions operate effectively during local government reorganisation. It has been developed in response to engagement with councils and tested with local government representatives. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft order, which I commend to the Committee.
Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vallance of Balham
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy and Net Zero and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 April 2026. I want to briefly outline the purpose of nuclear safeguards and explain the proposed amendments to the nuclear safeguards regulations. These regulations form the foundation of the UK’s civil nuclear safeguards regime, enabling us to meet our international obligations. These amendments are designed to refine and strengthen the UK’s system.
Nuclear safeguards are a cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. They are accounting, reporting and verification processes that demonstrate that nuclear material and facilities are not being diverted for military use. Safeguards are how we show the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community that civil nuclear material is being used as it should be and is not being diverted into military programmes. The safeguards system is also central to building confidence for international nuclear trade and co-operation. These are distinct from nuclear safety and security but, of course, they are just as vital.
For almost 50 years, the UK has committed to meeting our international obligations and supporting the international nuclear safeguards regime. A strong, well-functioning regime sends a clear message that the UK takes its responsibility as a nuclear state seriously. Our current safeguards regime has been in place since the UK left the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, in 2020. It was designed to be equivalent in effectiveness to the previous regime. The Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 set out operator requirements and conferred functions on the Office for Nuclear Regulation as the UK’s safeguards regulator.
The amendments we are considering are about improving how that regime works. The proposed amendments are drawn from a statutory post-implementation review carried out in 2023 and then a public consultation on the proposed amendments in 2025. There are three broad categories of amendments, which I will cover briefly in turn. The first covers the proposed removal of provisions related to the transition to the ONR-led regime or those that do not apply to the UK’s operational context. Their removal simplifies and brings greater clarity to the regulations.
The second and largest set of changes is about improving operability and clarifying requirements. The main change in this category is the move to using the IAEA design information questionnaires. Up until now, the UK continued to use Euratom’s design information reporting format, and we are moving to the IAEA format instead. This change will align the UK internationally and support our civil nuclear sector’s international partnerships.
We are also changing some timelines for submitting information to the ONR, including some reduction in the timelines for operators. For example, we are changing the timelines for submitting design information to the ONR. The UK is required to submit design information to the IAEA within 30 days. Under the current regulations, the entirety of the 30 days sits with the operators. By dividing the timeline to 23 days for operators and seven for ONR, the majority of time remains with the operators while the regulator now has five working days for its activities to meet the requirements. We are also updating some definitions so that they keep the UK aligned internationally.
The final set of changes is smaller but important for making sure the regulations are fit for purpose. This includes provisions for offences, where relevant, as an established final point of escalation. The Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations will also be updated to reflect ONR activities added to NSR 19, and we expect these costs to be minimal.
In conclusion, these amendments will strengthen the Nuclear Safeguards Regulations. This will enable a more efficient and effective delivery of the domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime, ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations. At the same time, the changes will support our nuclear industry in its trade and operational activities, both of which, of course, are vital to our country’s economic growth and energy security. I look forward to hearing what noble Lords say about the proposed detail.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations. Nuclear safeguards and the system for reporting, inspection and verification gives the International Atomic Energy Agency and the wider world the confidence that our civil nuclear material is being used for peaceful purposes and is not being diverted into weapons programmes. Without a credible safeguards regime, we cannot trade in civil nuclear material, operate our existing plants or attract the international partners on whom our nuclear ambitions depend.
The 2019 regulations established our domestic regime post Brexit. This instrument, some seven years on, does several things. It removes transitional provisions that were only ever intended to smooth the exit from Euratom; tightens and clarifies the language operators must work within; introduces new offences to plug enforcement gaps; adjusts reporting timelines to give the Office for Nuclear Regulation more time to scrutinise what it receives; and, most significantly for our international standing, transitions the UK from Euratom-style basic technical characteristic questionnaires to the IAEA’s own design information questionnaire format. It also amends the associated fees regulations to put the ONR’s cost recovery on a clearer statutory footing.
On these Benches, we recognise this as an essential and overdue update to a globally recognised regulatory system, and we support it. We particularly welcome the removal of the Euratom transition provisions and the move to the IAEA’s design information questionnaire format as a sensible step forward towards international harmonisation that will ease collaboration with our partners and materially support the UK, US and global civil industry partnerships.
Our support, however, should not be mistaken for uncritical or entirely enthusiastic support for the wider nuclear policy: we continue to have some concerns about the delivery of large-scale plants. We recognise that nuclear is obviously a crucial part of our energy mix, and we are supportive of the move towards more small modular reactors.
On the detail, I apologise, as I have several questions for the Minister. On the new offences, these regulations introduce criminal liability for non-compliance with particular safeguards provisions and for the failure to declare a change in facility type—corrections to an oversight in the original 2019 regulations. I just want to ask the Minister about this gap, which feels significant in our enforcement regime and why it was allowed to persist for seven years before being addressed here. I further seek assurance that the ONR now has everything that it needs as both legal powers and operational capacity to pursue enforcement action all the way to prosecution, where the gravity of a breach demands it.
On reporting timescales, the Minister has set out the window for operators to declare design information changes, but can he confirm that this tighter window will not place a disproportionate burden on the more than 130 qualifying facilities with limited operations? As he is well aware, we are talking about smaller-scale universities and corporate operations.
On the transition to the new IAEA forms, I welcome the Government’s decision, following consultation feedback, to extend the transition period for adopting the design information questionnaire from two years to three.
I feel that one question did not get sufficient attention in the other place. Are there specific risks during the migration and transition? Moving from one accountancy and control system to another is not just an exercise done on paper. There is a period during any transition when records may exist in two formats simultaneously, when staff are learning new systems and when the potential for gaps or miscategorisation is at its highest. We will also see some new definitions from the SI. What specific guidance will the ONR provide to operators to ensure that no accounting anomalies fall between the two systems and that the integrity of our nuclear accounting records is maintained throughout what will be a difficult transition period?
On record-keeping, this instrument extends the retention period for operating and accounting records from five years to 30. That is a big change. I notice that the costs in the supporting documents were quite low, but keeping computer records for that long is quite a complicated exercise, as computers become obsolete. Is that not putting on too much of a burden? Will the Minister say something about extending computer record-keeping and its security over that long period of time?
Finally, on repurposed facilities, the instrument introduces requirements for operators to notify the ONR 200 days before a change of facility type. Given the Government’s policy ambition to rapidly deploy small modular reactors, are they certain that these regulatory time changes are flexible enough not to impact the rollout and operation of small modular reactors?
We support this instrument. It will strengthen our safeguards regime, bring us more closely into step with our international partners and help guard against the unlawful diversion of civil nuclear material, so we fully support it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee to introduce these regulations. I am particularly pleased to be opposite him for the first time on these issues. I hope we will have many similar exchanges in the years to come. I am glad to say that, on this occasion, we are in agreement. There is little I can add to the excellent contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
A strong, independent nuclear safeguards regime is vital for our civil nuclear industry to function effectively. However, the Government must support nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry partners to ensure that they are not placing unworkable burdens on the nuclear industry. As the Minister said in his introduction, the instrument will implement most of the recommendations from the post-implementation review in 2019, so it is largely Conservative Party policy.
The Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are the current regime used to demonstrate that civil nuclear material is not unlawfully diverted into military use. Also relevant are the Nuclear Safeguards (Fees) Regulations 2021, which regulate the fees payable by operators to the Office for Nuclear Regulation—ONR. This instrument will amend both to remove regulations related to the transition from Euratom, as both previous speakers have said, which are no longer applicable or do not apply to the UK context. We agree with that.
A new offence corrects an oversight, when the NSR 19 was originally implemented, relating to non-compliance with the requirements of the particular safeguards provisions. We also support that. An offence has been added related to non-compliance, with a new provision requiring operators to declare to ONR where there is a change in the type of facility. It also ensures that the regulator has a sanctions regime for non-compliance.
The main change, as the Minister made clear to the Committee, is to replace Euratom’s basic technical characteristics—BTC—questionnaire, which assesses how nuclear site operators account for their nuclear material, with the IAEA’s design information questionnaire, or DIQ. It also reduces the design information changes reporting time, as the Minister stated, from 30 to 23 days. He also stated that it requires operators to give the ONR more notice of imports, from four to seven days, and of exports, I believe from seven to 13 days. I may have missed that in the Minister’s comments, but I understand that that is the case.
It was interesting to see concerns over some of the changes made by nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry parties who were consulted. This includes changes to notification timings for the import and export of nuclear material, with operators questioning why the ONR needed more time to report this information to the IAEA, and the adequate number of staff needed to fulfil accountancy and control plans for nuclear material, with operators concerned that this was not clear enough, having previously questioned the rationale for the plans. Maybe the Minister will be able to comment on that.
In summary, the impact of the costs on business will be about £200,000 to £300,000. The transition period for changing forms from BTCs to DIQs was lengthened, with the ONR still accepting BTCs for the first year and DIQs for the second year. The notification timings for reporting design change, imports and exports were also amended to give operators more time than originally proposed, while still increasing the time the regulator has to quality assure. This instrument introduces changes largely supported by the consultees and initiated by the previous Government, as I mentioned. Therefore, we thank the Minister and are supportive of the proposals he brought before the Committee.
I have a question related to his portfolio. Events of recent days have suggested that the energy Bill may be delayed. I do not imagine that the Minister can possibly comment on that, but I suggest to him that that would be regrettable because the Fingleton recommendations are really important. It would be helpful to the Committee if he could comment on that, if he is in a position to. I am grateful to the Minister and conclude by reinforcing my support for the recommendations he brought forward.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for the support and the useful additional questions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his wish to be opposite me for a long time. I cannot make any guarantees on that.
I agree with some of the points made, which largely support what I said. As I said, these amendments strengthen our position and make things easier. They will support trade and operations that are central to the sector’s work. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why there is a gap in closing the offences part. The answer is that a statutory instrument was needed to do that, and this is a statutory instrument to achieve that. It is important that we are now closing those gaps. These amendments remove what has been a long transition agreement that really is not needed any more, given where we are domestically. The industry has largely welcomed this.
By bringing our design reporting requirements in line with those of the IAEA, we will make it simpler for both domestic and international new entrants to the market. That includes, on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the SMRs, which are crucially important for where we go next.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised operator concerns. There is no doubt that the operators expressed some concerns about the move, for example, to use the IAEA questionnaire so quickly. We listened to that and introduced a longer transition period, to give them a chance to familiarise themselves with the process and to develop the new reporting format. Importantly, the ONR will work very closely with them to facilitate that change. It now has a year of the old system and then two years to make the transition.
Similarly, when operators noted concern about the timelines for reporting—an important point that both noble Lords picked up—there was no time allocated to the ONR. Strictly speaking, the operators could go right the way up to day 30 and hand the information over to the ONR. It then had to get it in by day 30, otherwise it was in breach of our international obligations. Initially, the proposal was to give half and half. We listened to the concerns and changed it so that the ONR will take five working days and the operators have the rest. That is an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns.
It is particularly important that, as a nuclear weapons state, we demonstrate that we are complying with these safeguards and do not have any mechanism to divert civil nuclear material for military use. This will strengthen our ability to do so. In making these safeguards, we will encourage other states to follow suit, which will support the wider non-proliferation regime.
Two extra questions were asked. On the question about the SMR rollout, which I have partially answered, I can absolutely reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is a high priority for us to get that moving. I do not believe that what is in here in any way impedes our ability to do that quickly. That leads on to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised about what we are doing on the Fingleton review. That legislation will be introduced in this parliamentary Session. We are committed to try to drive the Fingleton recommendations through to completion by the end of next year, as we said when they were first introduced.
I hope that answers the questions that noble Lords have raised and that I have provided the necessary assurances to allow them to approve the regulations before us today.