Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Orders and regulations: Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions (England) Regulations 2026 - motion to approve and associated regret motion in the name of Lord Jamieson

We move now to the town and country planning discharge of local country planning discharge of local planning authority functions. England Regulations 2026 Baroness

18:47

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

>> My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the draft town and country planning discharge of local planning authority functions. planning authority functions. England Regulations 2026. They were laid before the House on the 1st of June and, following a minor correction relayed on the 8th of June, the regulations set out the arrangements for a National Scheme of delegation for planning decisions in England, and a maximum limit on the number of members who may sit on planning committee.

We believe they are necessary to improve the effectiveness of planning committees and the quality and speed of decision making in local planning authorities. If Parliament approves, the regulations will come into effect on 31st October 2026. Before I get into the detail of the regulations, I would first like to respond to the motion before us. I want to start by making it very clear that what we are doing is not an attack on local democracy. We know how vital local planning committees are.

They know their communities and they know what development is needed in their area. What we are trying to do here is to support them so they can be as effective as possible. The regulations will allow them to focus on the applications which really matter to their communities, so that the housing and growth they want and need can be delivered as quickly as possible. We also do not want to put further pressure on officers. They are skilled professionals and we want to ensure that they are trusted and empowered to make decisions on more applications and more quickly to ensure that much needed development is brought forward in the right places at the right time.

These measures will mean that less time and resource will be spent on preparing for committee meetings. For those smaller applications in schedule one, speeding up the decision making process more broadly and freeing up important officer time to focus on those larger applications. I want to be clear at the outset that these regulations do not change in any way. The right of people to submit representations on planning applications, nor does it alter the existing requirements to consult on planning applications. We have published statutory guidance to help local authorities implement these new measures, and we have asked the Planning Advisory Service to provide support and training.

I will briefly explain how the national scheme of delegation will work. It places planning applications into two categories in schedule one are those applications which must always be delegated to a planning officer. The types of application we are talking about here are for minor minor residential development of up to nine dwellings, minor commercial and householder development. Schedule two sets out those applications which may be subject to meeting a gateway test be referred to a planning committee for decision, including larger applications for planning permission not in schedule one.

The presumption is that schedule two applications will continue to be delegated to officers. However, we recognise there may be cases where committee scrutiny would be appropriate and that is where the gateway test comes in. Local planning authorities will need to identify a nominated officer, usually the chief planner or equivalent, and a nominated member normally the chair of the committee to determine whether an application meets the criteria of the gateway test, the nominated officer and member will have to agree that a schedule two application meets at least one of the following criteria before it can be referred to committee.

Those criteria are where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area, or where the application raises a significant planning matter. Having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations, it is only where the nominated officer and member agree that at least one of those criteria are met, that the application can be referred to committee, otherwise it will be determined by a planning officer. We recognise that in the interests of transparency and propriety, regardless of whether the gateway criteria are engaged, it may sometimes be appropriate to refer applications where there is local authority involvement to the planning committee, and we have therefore made specific provision for this in regulations.

The regulations also set a limit on the number of members on the Planning Committee of 13 to allow for focussed and quality debates. We have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders on these measures. From an initial working paper in 2024, through debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, two public consultations and many round tables and other events. We have listened to the differing views expressed and considered them carefully as we develop the final measures. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations.

18:52

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

Hear, hear. Well said. >> This motion be agreed to. Amendment Lord Jamieson. >> My Lords. First of all, I must

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. First of all, I must declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I rise to move the amendment standing in my move the amendment standing in my name. These regulations may appear to be relatively straightforward. Implementation of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, but they represent something much more significant. They change one of the fundamental democratic safeguards of our planning system. Nobody on these benches disputes that our planning system needs to work better. We do need more homes.

We need faster commercial developments, and we need better infrastructure. We need a planning system that is efficient, proportionate and gives certainty to communities and developers alike. But we fear the government pursuing speed at the expense of democratic oversight. And I'm afraid on this. I must disagree with the noble Baroness. The Minister. Planning is not an exact science. It is an exercise in judgement. Planning officers, planning committees and inspectors are all required to weigh competing material planning considerations. The need for housing, economic growth, environmental protection, heritage, highways, design, impact on neighbouring communities, the legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework provide the framework against which those decisions are made, but they cannot prescribe the weight and view for every one of those considerations.

Ultimately, that is a matter of judgement. In many cases, that judgement is relatively straightforward. That's why around 90 to 95% of planning applications are already determined by planning officers under delegated powers, with only a small proportion ever coming before elected planning committees. And of those that go to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committees, the vast majority go in On with the planning officer's recommendation. I can't find national statistics, but for national statistics, but for Central Bedfordshire, in the last 12 months, only one of the 56 12 months, only one of the 56 applications that have gone to committee where the officer disagreed. Has it been overturned disagreed. Has it been overturned on appeal? That is a very small number. The applications that do number. The applications that do reach committee are often those where the balance of decision making is finer, where they have a significant impact on a community where residents have genuine concerns and where there are competing, competing planning considerations to be weighed, or where substantial developments will have a lasting consequence on the character of an area.

That's precisely the cases where we need democratic accountability. People will not always agree with the outcome of a planning decision, but they're far more likely to accept the decision if they have seen the arguments tested in public by elected representatives who are accountable to the communities that they serve. That's, my Lords. Is democracy in action? My Lords, these regulations, as the noble Baroness, the Minister has highlighted, generate a national framework governing how authorities must discharge planning functions, and they significantly narrowed discretion for authorities that have traditionally exercised through their own constitutions the schemes of delegation.

As the Minister said, all schedule one applications, which will include minor applications, nine homes or less, minor commercial and householder developments, discharge of planning conditions and reserved matters for applications of up to 500 homes. Schedule two, which is largely. All other applications, are presumed to be determined by officers unless the gateway to test. Sorry. The gateway test. That both the nominated officer, which is normally the chief planner and the nominated councillor, normally the chair of committee, agree that either it raises an economic, social and environmental issue of significance to the area or raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan or any other material consideration.

That is a dramatic reduction in the democratic accountability of the planning system. Let's look at schedule one. Government suggests these arrangements relate to minor applications, but this needs to be seen in context. An application for nine homes in a small village is significant. If you happen to be a neighbour, that is significant. And what happens when a site is agreed with a suggested nine homes but is subsequently brought back with 15 or 20 homes under reserved matters. Not an unusual situation.

And for developments of up to 500 homes, all reserved matters and discharge of conditions and 106 arrangements would be determined by officers. Now, when members of the public hear reserved matters, they think of, oh, you know, the colour of a front door, and so forth. And I would be very happy with officers determining that. But that's not the case. Those of us who have dealt with planning applications for a number of years know the reserved matters generally involve the layout, the design, the density, highways, landscaping, drainage, open space, how much community facilities are there, and so forth.

These are not trivial decisions. And I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, when, as leader of Stevenage Borough Council, which she had been happy with, 500 home development in the centre of Stevenage and not having any influence on the decision that was being made. Now, my Lords, this this may be bad, but it gets worse. The threshold for it going to committee for some of those more major applications which could involve thousands of homes, require a significant issue.

That is a very high planning threshold. There are other practical considerations. Going to planning committee provides an intermediate step that allows local councillors to have a discussion with planning officers to get those extra things, and I can relate to examples. In my own ward, where we have successfully worked with the developer to get a few houses moved in a different direction, so they didn't overlook to get some additional funding for a recreation. I'm aware.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You're aware, but can you bring your remarks to an end, if you don't mind? I will, I will. Thank you very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will, I will. Thank you very much. It's time limited. The planning system needs to strike a planning system needs to strike a balance. This system is not striking a balance. We need to ensure democratic accountability. ensure democratic accountability. There is no need to remove the democratic accountability.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

democratic accountability. My Lords. The original question was on the regulations of Baby of the House to be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Jamieson at the end to insert the word set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is this, that this amendment be agreed to. My Lords, I.

18:59

Baroness Eaton (Conservative)

- -

Declare my interest as a Vice President of the Local Government Association. My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Jamieson. Having spent many years in local government, including as chairman of the Local Government Association, I want to make one simple point. While councils support the objective of improving the speed and efficiency of the planning system, they are concerned that these regulations risked doing so at the expense of local democratic accountability.

The government has long argued that power should be devolved from Whitehall to local communities. Yet these proposals move in the opposite direction by reducing the role of the democratically elected local representatives. If the government claim to believe in devolution, the Northern Powerhouse, then decisions about the future of northern towns and villages should remain with those elected by the people who live there. The Local Government Association made this point clearly during the government's consultation. It recognised the case for reform, but warned that a highly standardised national scheme of delegation does not reflect the diversity of planning authorities across England.

A rural unitary authority, a metropolitan borough and a district council face very different planning challenges and councils retain the flexibility to organise their planning committees and decision making processes in ways that reflect the needs of their local communities. I am particularly concerned by the removal of councils, councillors ability to call applications before a planning committee. My Lords call in powers are not there to delay development. They provide an important democratic safeguard where an application raises significant local concern.

Complex planning, planning issues or substantial public interest. The LGA recommended that an effective call in mechanism should remain alongside the new gateway test. I regret that government have not accepted that recommendation. The gateway test itself gives me concern for cause for concern. If the nominated officer, a nominated member, cannot agree that an application should come before committee, it is automatically delegated to an officer. That default position seems the wrong way round. Where is genuine disagreement? There should surely be a mechanism that allows democratic scrutiny rather than automatically bypassing it.

Finally, I question the decision to prescribe planning committee sizes for legislation. The Local Government Association has rightly pointed out that there is little evidence that committee size determines effectiveness. What it can affect is political balance and geographical representation, particularly as councils may become larger through local government reorganisation. Guidance would provide far greater flexibility than a statutory cap. My Lords, our councils are not resisting reform. They simply ask that the reform respects local democracy and recognises that one size does not fit all.

And for these reasons I am pleased to support my noble friend's regret motion.

19:03

Lord Evans of Guisborough (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, the. Days of Whitehall. >> And devolution. >> Of power. >> Are over for good. Those weren't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are over for good. Those weren't my words. They were the words of the right hon. Member for the right hon. Member for Makerfield in his speech yesterday morning. I understand that he may soon hold a position of power within the government, and I wonder what he would make of these regulations that are placed in front of us this evening with their their top down Whitehall knows best approach to local planning. I chaired a planning committee for four years.

I did five terms as a local councillor and I know many of my noble friends and indeed noble Lords on all sides of the House did good service in local government, including the noble Baroness. The Minister and I have a degree of dÃ©ja vu in talking about this again, because I know I address this issue at the Second Reading of the Planning and legislation, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Last year, when we first discussed this matter, one of the points that I made at the time was that relatively small planning applications can create precedents, which then mean that other buildings nearby can be developed in the same way.

Other pieces of land can be developed in the same way. A relatively small precedent can very quickly change the nature of a whole area of town or a whole borough, particularly. It can change the nature of our small villages and towns. And I think it is right that there is democratic input to that decision from people who are elected, rather than the decision being taken just by planning officers who are there to provide guidance on the law and planning rules, rather than direction to the committee.

Furthermore, we all know those of us who have been in local government that quite often during campaigning, we're asked about relatively small planning applications, controversial planning decisions, what are we going to be doing about them? Quite often, candidates campaign on those decisions. Of course, having campaigned, you have to recuse yourself from a planning committee decision. You can't vote on it. But at the moment, there's nothing to stop a person who's been elected appearing before a planning committee and making that case on behalf of their constituents.

It's a very important role for elected members. Under these proposals, not only would councillor not be able to do that, there very often wouldn't even be a committee for them to appear before. When I chaired the planning committee at Havering, I was always very, very careful about keeping the public involved, about what was happening, because I knew that for some people, for quite a lot of people, actually, that committee was the only contact they had with the democratic elements of our local council.

So the way that committee was conducted and the results it produced reflected more widely on the whole of the organisation, not just on the elected councillors, but on the the nature of the body itself and the way it was seen by the public. I was very, very clear that the committee was basically a shop window for the council. What these proposals do, sadly, is they take a shop window and they turn it into an opaque window through which things are happening inside, but no one is quite sure what they are.

And we leave the public to draw their own conclusions about it. And I think in the current political atmosphere, that's quite a dangerous thing to do, because the conclusions that people draw may not always be logical, and they may not always be fair to the people involved. This puts a lot of weight on our council offices as well, which quite often they they do not want to to have to take on. My noble friends have dealt with a lot of the inadequacies in the legislation in in detail, and I had a fair bit, I wanted to say, but I'm mindful of the amount of time, and I promise the whip that I won't be running over.

But I do wonder, and perhaps the noble Baroness, the Minister, can explain this to us when she stands up, how this set of regulations pass the Makerfield test.

19:08

Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. >> My Lords. >> I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and in doing so I would remind members of my interest as vice president of local London councils. Most councillors will tell you the value of being able to refer planning decisions to a planning committee for consideration in public. It can mean that local residents, as has just been said, can actually participate in the debate. They can draw issues to the attention of those making the decision, as well as to witness the decision making process as it actually happens.

It's therefore disappointing that this Statutory Instrument appears to reduce that opportunity by allowing an even higher number of applications to be delegated to officers, and written submissions, I'm afraid, are not the same thing. Indeed, there was a debate in the other place last week when Labour members of Parliament were referencing the value of article four directives to ensure planning applications for housing and houses of multiple occupation, and how that would be required. Fortunately, the Conservative Council in the London borough of Bexley, of which I have knowledge, did indeed seek an article four directive to ensure that is the case, as we believe that would make sure that the impact of those individual requests on our residents and the infrastructure could be considered.

My Lords, it's difficult to square seeking democracy in the planning process one week and then reduce it the next. The planning process needs to be open and transparent through allowing reference of planning applications to the democratically elected committee. If members choose to do so, this can also add value, as it means that any potential issues or benefits can be aired, considered and possibly addressed. That quite often results in impacting the the outcome of the decision, or indeed applying conditions that might resolve some of the potential issues.

It needs to be taken seriously. This could be particularly relevant on reserved matters, as was said earlier, or indeed, the use of section 106 monies on larger developments as the impact on the local community will be even greater. Residents, quite rightly, are interested in what's happening in their area, and whilst it's often difficult to explain that applications must be considered on planning grounds, referral to a committee allows that to happen. It also protects council officers. I'm sure we've all heard the alleged rumours of brown envelopes over the years.

What better way to ensure residents see the decision making process in action than at a planning committee? Whilst the suggestion is that referral could be by the gateway test, that would be through an agreement between the Head of Development Control or the named person and the planning committee chairman, but they need to agree on the rationale. And as my noble friend Baroness Eaton has just said, when that doesn't happen, the decision should remain with members. My Lords, we live in a democratic society.

We all know that the majority of applications are not contentious and are determined by officers. But when there is a reason for transparency, surely there should be a mechanism to allow for determination by committee. Planning applications can greatly impact residents lives, so surely they should be able to witness and participate in the process. I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to reassure us that this S.I. doesn't water down that system.

19:12

Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords. >> I refer to my register of interests. As a councillor on Kirklees Council. In my view, this Kirklees Council. In my view, this is a developer's charter. The government have been hoodwinked into believing that around 5% of all planning applications that currently go to planning committee for decision are the basic cause of the lack of house building. There are over 1 million homes already, with full planning permission sufficient for the housing needs for at least the next three years.

So where are the measures from the government to stop the delay to building those homes? That's why this is a developer's charter. These regulations also fail a devolution test, the Devolution Act, plus the strong support for greater devolution by the next Prime Minister, all point in the diametrically opposite direction than the centralising zeal in these regulations. This is, Whitehall knows best personified. There will be a national scheme of delegation which treats every part of the country as if it were the same.

Planning situations in London are not the same as those in, say, the hills of Yorkshire. But that is what these regulations state and and impose on local people. The inadequacies of a centralised diktat are clear when considering schedule one. Applications which must must be determined by planning officers. Now these include. As the noble Baroness, the Minister has said, housing developments of up to nine units. But these are often the very applications that can affect neighbouring properties the most often these are infill sites or development of large gardens or small unallocated sites in the local plan.

So this approach has consequences. Officers will be heavily lobbied by both councillors and residents, without there being a recourse to an open forum to air the problems and the solutions. Schedule two includes all major residential applications and presumably, though it doesn't say, and big developments like data centres or incinerators, by default, these will be decided by planning officers, and I quote, the overriding presumption is that the functions listed in schedule two will be delegated to officers.

Public decision making provides the antidote to allegations of corruption. Currently, the Planning Committee provides this essential transparency. How will officers integrity be protected in this not so very brave new world? The Gateway proposals is a mere sop to democracy. This is the only way to get open and democratic planning decisions made. The gateway consists, as we've heard, of, a senior planning officer and a senior councillor deciding, presumably behind closed doors, whether an application should go to planning committee.

They have to consider the strict test in the regulations, whether there are one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area, or the proposal raises one or more significant planning matters. And as we've heard, if the planning officer and senior councillor disagree, it is by regulation that the officer must refuse to take it to committee, but decide it instead in the closed confines of the planning office. Further, Councillor Collins of applications are banned, banned in a democracy.

Banned is the word that is used. The weight of residents objections are no longer of any consequence as to whether an application is considered in a democratic way. In a nutshell, these regulations promote secret decision making and are anti-democratic and centralising in nature. Accusations of NIMBYism were thrown at my colleague Gideon Amos MP by the Secretary of State, simply illustrate the paucity of the government's proposals when they have to resort to bullying slogans. Liberal Democrats will support the noble Lord Jameson if he decides to call a vote, a fatal motion to stop these dreadful regulations.

Is the Liberal Democrat preference. But we are aware that the conservative benches have a policy of not supporting such motions, which significantly reduces the chance of success. What we do urge, however, is creative thinking by Liberal Democrats on councils to find workable ways within the regulations for transparent and democratic decision making.

19:18

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)

- -

19:33

Lord Jamieson (Conservative)

- -

Yeah. >> Well said. >> Can I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her explanation? the Minister, for her explanation? I think it has. I interpreted it. My Lords, the English planning system has always sought to strike a balance between national government planning policy and that local government and local authorities put that policy into practice through democratically accountable institutions with knowledge of their local communities. And that balance has served us well. Can I thank the my noble friends Baroness Eaton, Baroness O'Neill and Lord Evans of Guisborough for their contributions, and also Baroness Pinnock, who I think have all sung, so to speak, with one voice that they feel that this bill is removing democracy, removing transparency and risks, undermining faith in the system.

Local planning committees on controversial applications give that opportunity for visible public decision making, and I think that there are genuine consequences of doing this. These regulations move that balance to central prescription, not changing planning policy itself to improve it, but by strong arming how local authorities organise the democratic process, which planning decisions are made, and all too many will be in private, in the dark, and we will lose faith in it. That does seem to contrast with, as my noble friend Lord Evans of Guisborough said, what a certain member of the other House was talking about yesterday, about further devolution.

It does seem rather interesting that the first move, the following day, is a dramatic move in centralisation. Now we all accept that there are occasions where planning committees do frustrate development and do delay it, but that's not a reason to completely undermine the democratic underpinning of the planning process. During the passage of the bill, we proposed an amendment to tighten up the committee process without completely undermining it. Unfortunately, this was dismissed out of hand by the noble Baroness.

The Minister and I recall the phrase driving a coach and horses through being used. We've also sought to clarify the situation on brownfield, with a strong presumption in favour of development on brownfield sites, which has also been rejected by governments. My Lords, it is by providing clear, consistent planning, policy and guidance, a consistent and coherent planning process with appropriate checks and balances that we can ensure a smooth running planning system that the public has faith in. It is not by undermining the democratic fundamentals.

And it is for that reason that I would like to ask the House to support this regret amendment. However, I am a practical man and I recognise that at this time of night and after having a slightly contentious bill earlier, noble Lords would probably prefer that I didn't. So I regretfully do not remove, do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move my regret motion. Lordships pleasure. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure. This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question now is that the The question now is that the original motion be agreed to. As many as our opinion will say content intent to the contrary, not content intent to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. We'll now have a brief pause. I think, because I think I should have had a brief at some stage, shouldn't I know? Oh, I shouldn't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have a brief thought. Yes. A brief pause for people to leave the chamber.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanks.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanks. For. Thanks. My Lords. We now come to questions on a statement made in questions on a statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday 25th of June on the steel trade.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

25th of June on the steel trade. And we start with the two front. My Lords. This episode says. A great deal. About the.

19:38

Statement: Steel Trade Measure Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)

>> About the. >> Attention the government pays to the business community. For months the business community. For months now, manufacturers, fabricators, construction firms and businesses in aerospace, automotive and defence have warned about the consequences of the government's original proposals. And yet meaningful changes have only come at the 11th hour, just days before the new regime is due to take effect. Now I. We warmly welcome the partial changes that have been announced. It's right that the government have increased the overall tariff free quota, that they have reduced the proposed reduction in quota volumes from 60% to 51%, and that they have removed 11 product codes where there is no UK production.

But the core problem remains the government had left untouched the 50% tariff, once a quota is exhausted, this will be passed through supply chains into downstream sectors and ultimately into higher prices for British consumers. Additionally, the government itself accepts that some commodity codes contain both UK produced and non UK produced grades and sizes. Now, this poses grave problems for UK importing businesses, which depend on specialist steel products, alloys and certified grades not not readily available from domestic suppliers.

There is therefore no genuine case by case exemption for specialist steel unavailable from a UK mill. There is only a quota that is particularly worrying My Lords, for smaller, high value manufacturers specialist firms which import smaller volumes, but which depend on particular grades with no realistic option but to pay the tariff. This will inevitably damage the competitiveness of our downstream sectors. Now the government have offered only a three month transitional period covering goods contracted before the 14th of March and imported between the 1st of July and the 30th of September.

However, industrial supply agreements, particularly for specialist steel, can run. For years, firms that entered into good faith long term contracts may still face a 50% tariff simply because delivery falls outside an arbitrary three month window. Now, the Minister may say that there was no choice that the existing safeguard expires today on the 30th of June, and that delay would expose British steelmakers to global overcapacity and subsidised imports. But that is precisely why the government should have brought forward a credible long term plan earlier, rather than arriving at the deadline with an emergency measure which is needed significant revision in its final days.

The government's own strategy recognises the central problem of industrial electricity costs. Steel is energy intensive. If Britain wants a strong domestic steel industry, it needs electricity prices that allow British producers to compete, not merely survive behind a tariff wall. So will the noble Lord. The Minister, explain what further action the government will take to bring industrial electricity costs down for steel makers and steel users alike? Will the government scrap the carbon price burden on energy intensive industry, rather than allowing firms to face ever more complex costs through the UK Emissions Trading Scheme and the future carbon border adjustment mechanism.

And will the Minister also address the growing regulatory burden? Will the government at last repeal burdensome ESG reporting requirements, including those requiring businesses to report on greenhouse gas emissions, non-financial information and sustainability statements? Could the Minister also answer the following questions? First, the government's exclusions rest on a test of no production or production. Paused. So how does the noble Lord, the Minister, justify keeping specialist grades in scope, where there is no UK produced equivalent that can realistically be used, particularly in aerospace and defence, where supplier certification takes years? Secondly, will the government consider creating an expedited exemption or review process for businesses which can demonstrate that a product is unavailable from a UK producer in the required grade form, quantity or certification standard? And thirdly, when will we see a genuinely durable steel strategy, one which addresses energy costs, carbon costs, investment planning delays and regulatory burdens.

And finally, my Lords, earlier today, there was an urgent question in the other place on the impacts of the steel tariffs on businesses in Northern Ireland. There is no domestic steel making capacity in Northern Ireland, which means many in Northern Ireland will feel they are being penalised without the benefits of protecting their own steel industry. So can the noble Lord. The Minister confirm how affordable steel will continue to flow into Northern Ireland under these arrangements? My Lords, in summary, Britain needs a strong steel industry, but Britain also needs strong manufacturers, strong construction firms, strong defence supply chains and competitive exporters.

The task for the government is not to choose between upstream steel producers and downstream steel users. It is surely to ensure that both can survive.

19:46

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Someone who spent most of his life in Sheffield and South life in Sheffield and South Yorkshire. This issue is not an abstract discussion about tariffs and trade policies. It's about the future of communities that have made steel, engineering and manufacturing part of their identity for generations. South Yorkshire has always been more than a producer of steel. It's been the place of innovation and today, alongside our steel heritage, we are home to one of Europe's leading advanced manufacturing clusters. The work taking place at Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District around the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, demonstrates what modern British manufacturing can achieve.

Global companies like Rolls Royce, Boeing, McLaren and many others have chosen to invest there because of the extraordinary skills, research, engineering excellence that exist in our region. That is precisely why getting these measures right matters. My Lords, I welcome the government's statement and in particular, the improvements they have made following engagement with the industry. As we heard earlier, increasing tariff fee quarter volumes and removing product codes where there is no demand, domestic product production are sensible changes and Ministers deserve credit for listening.

We on these benches have consistently supported action to strengthen British Steel, making resilient domestic steel industry is essential for our economy, our nation's security and our industrial future, and we also recognise the pressures created by global overcapacity and unfair competition. But if there's one lesson that Sheffield has taught us all, my Lords, over the decades, it's that our steel industry and our advanced manufacturing succeed together. You cannot thrive if the other is weakened. The difficulty with these measures is the question of domestic non-availability.

Many manufacturers in aerospace, defence, energy and precision engineering require highly specialised grades of stainless bar and cold finished bars that simply are not produced in the United Kingdom in the required grades, specifications, dimensions and commercially viable volumes. My Lords, these businesses are not choosing to import because they are cheaper. They are importing because there is no British alternative available. Michael. They've been. Colleagues in the Other place have argued that in the other place last week that downstream manufacturing supports around 300 000 jobs, compared to approximately 3000 in the primary steelmaking.

We must therefore ensure that policies intended to protect one part of our industrial base do not inadvertently damage another employs ten times more. The people in South Yorkshire. We understand those connections better than most. A component manufactured in Sheffield may ultimately end up in an aircraft engine, a Formula one car, a defence system or offshore engineering project products. Those simple chains are complex, highly regulated and internationally integrated. Changing suppliers is not something that happens over a weekend like we heard earlier, and it requires years of qualification, testing and certification.

And for many firms, they are simply no immediate substitute. So I really hope that the Minister, when you rise, can provide reassurance that the remaining product categories, particularly categories 14 and 27, have generally been assessed against the reality of domestic supply, rather than simply the theoretical possibilities of production. I also remain concerned about businesses that enter contracts that we heard earlier after March, but before the final details were announced only days before the implementation. Manufacturers need 70s. My Lords, investment decisions are made over years, not weeks.

Finally, the governments. As the government begins negotiations in the WTO article 28 process, I hope they will retain a simple guiding principle where specialist steel cannot be sourced domestically. Permanent tariff barriers serve only to increase the cost of British manufactured without creating new British production. Sheffield's history teaches us that British steel manufacturing succeeds through innovation, skills and partnership, not artificial shortages. Let us support British Steel. Let us support British manufacturing and above all, let us all ensure that industrial policy recognises that these sectors are partners in our national nation's success, not competitors for government support.

19:50

Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, firstly, may I welcome the noble Lord Lord Mohammed of Tinsley to his place and thank him for everything that he has done so far with Sheffield Forgemasters and I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. My Lords, let me begin with first principles. The United Kingdom needs a strong and resilient steel sector. Both producers and downstream manufacturers. Steel is not simply another commodity. It is the backbone of our manufacturing economy, our defence capability, our critical national infrastructure and our economic security.

A country that cannot make steel is a country that becomes increasingly dependent on others for some of its most strategic needs. Yet our steel industry faces an existential challenge. 50 years ago, the United Kingdom produced 27 million tons of steel a year. Even as recently as 2010, we produced 12 million tons. My Lords, by 2024, that had fallen to just 4 million tonnes, meaning only around 30% of our domestic demand. No responsible government can simply stand by and accept that decline.

That is why we are committed to doing two things in tandem. First, we publish our steel strategy on 19th of March. It addresses the structural challenges facing the sector and is backed by up to £2.5 billion of government investment, alongside the £500 million already committed to Port Talbot, which I hope the noble Lord Houghton will appreciate. In response to the noble Lord Hanson point about electricity. The government also provides meaningful support through the British industry's supercharger, helping to reduce electricity costs for this energy intensive industry and strengthening its long term competitiveness.

Secondly, we committed to introducing a robust new steel trade measures to safeguard domestic steel production and protect our ability to produce steel for defence, critical national infrastructure and the industries of the future. Today, I have addressed that second commitment. I think every noble Lord recognises the scale of the challenge facing the steel producers across the world. Global overcapacity, opaque state subsidies and artificially depressed prices mean that British steel makers are not competing on a level playing field. For the past eight years, UK producers have benefited from the steel safeguard inherited from the European Union.

That safeguard, introduced by the previous government, provided an important degree of protection through quotas and a 25% out of quota tariff. But despite those measures, the UK steel production continued to decline. We have now reached a critical point. Under WTO rules, the safeguard legally expires today and cannot be extended beyond eight years. The same rules apply to the European Union. Had we simply allowed those protections to lapse without replacement, UK steel production would have lost all meaningful protection overnight.

Doing nothing was never an option. Indeed, at precisely the moment when Canada, the United States and the European Union have all strengthened their own trade defences, failure to act would have left the United Kingdom exposed as one of the few major open markets in the world. We would quickly have become the destination of supply steel diverted from global markets. The consequences would have been profound. It would not simply have weakened our steel industry. It would have threatened its very survival. That is why the government has acted.

From tomorrow, a new tariff rate quota regime will come into force. It introduces a 50% out of quota tariff, while protecting only those categories of steel that are made, or have the realistic potential to be made in the United Kingdom. We have always been clear that these measures must work not only for steel producers, but also for the manufacturers who rely on steel every day. That is why we have listened carefully to industry. Following extensive engagement, we have increased tariff free quotas, volumes to 3.2 million metric tonnes, an increase of more than 560 000 tonnes compared to our provisional proposal, representing a significant 21% uplift.

Nearly three quarters of UK steel imports by value and more than half by volumes, remain outside the scope of these measures altogether. We also recognise that British manufacturers sometimes need specialist grades of steel that simply cannot, that are not available from domestic producers. The quotas have therefore been carefully designed to ensure those imports can continue without unnecessary additional costs. We have introduced transitional arrangements, as mentioned by the noble Lord hunt, for contracts agreed before 14th March and imported between 1st of July and 30th of September, and we will review the operation of these measures after 12 months, monitoring their impact from day one.

We have also worked intensively with the European Union. Given our deeply integrated supply chains, we have agreed reciprocal arrangements that provide greater certainty for the UK. EU steel trade from tomorrow, while discussions continue on the longer term partnership. We remain committed to working constructively with our international partners to address the root cause of this challenge. Global global overcapacity. My Lords, some have also questioned whether the measures are necessary. I would simply ask them this do they believe that the United Kingdom should continue to have a sovereign steel industry? If the answer is yes, then they must also explain how they would protect it from the flood of cheap, heavily subsidised steel created by global overcapacity.

It is simply not credible to support British Steel in principle, while opposing every measures needed to preserve it in place. Our tariff and the measures are not about protectionism. They are about fairness. They ensure that British producers are not undercut by unfairly traded imports and prevent the United Kingdom from becoming a dumping ground for surplus steel. Without action, thousands of highly skilled jobs, strategically important industrial capabilities, and the future of steel communities across our country would be placed at risk.

There are those who argue that the market alone should decide that we should simply buy the cheaper steel available wherever it comes from, but we know how that story ends. We buy cheap today. Domestic production declines. Tomorrow. Still work closes. Skills disappear. Communities suffer. Then when international markets tighten or geopolitical tensions rise, we discover that we have suddenly surrendered our sovereign sovereign capability and have nowhere else to turn. We have seen the consequences of allowing strategic industries to decline before communities across our country are still living with those consequences today.

This government is simply not prepared to repeat those mistakes. My Lords, this government has made its choice. We choose to stand with British steelworkers, British manufacturers and the communities whose livelihoods depend on this vital industry. We choose to defend our sovereign steelmaking capability because we understand that steel is not simply another sector of the economy. It is a strategic, tangible and national asset. These measures are fair, they are proportionate and they are necessary. They strike the right balance between protecting domestic producers and ensuring manufacturers downstream have access to the steel they need to grow.

Above all, they sent a clear message that this government will not allow the United Kingdom to become a dumping ground for surplus steel, nor will we stand, while other strategically important British industry is allowed to decline. We are backing British Steel, we are protecting British jobs, and we are safeguarding an industry that remains fundamental to our country's prosperity, prosperity, resilience and national security for generations to come. My Lords, before I sit down, let me address the point that the noble Lord made about us, about a number of technical questions around how the measures will operate and the impact on sectors and businesses.

Noble Lords will be aware that these measures will be reviewed on 12 months, and the government will look at many of the issues that noble Lord raises and make necessary changes. However, I can confirm now to the House that we will remain responsive to any significant changes in circumstances. While we want to provide industry with as much predictability and certainty as possible. We reserve the right to intervene before the 12 month review. If there is a serious and material change in market conditions and domestic supply.

And he also mentioned asked about the statement today and how it impacts Northern Ireland, specific arrangements are in place. These include specific tariff rate quotas from the EU and facilitations to protect steel of UK origin, moving within the UK from incurring duty. HMRC has confirmed these arrangements to industry and more information will be available online on gov.uk tomorrow, which is the 1st of July.

20:00

Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)

- -

May I join the noble Lord >> May I join the noble Lord Minister welcoming Lord Mohammed? I think it's so helpful to have think it's so helpful to have someone with such experience of the steel industry participating in our debates, and I welcome him to the Liberal Democrat frontbench. Now, I welcome some of the assurances the noble Lord the Minister has given. But one of the questions I raised, I would like him to focus on for a few moments, namely, the growing regulatory burden faced by our steel industry.

Can I just join with him in saying, of course, Britain needs a strong steel industry. It's part of our past and it must be part of our future too. But at the moment, there are many signs that that growing regulatory burden is hampering growth in the sector, particularly the burdensome ESG reporting requirements, which I don't think he had time to deal with. My question, including those requiring businesses to report on greenhouse gas emissions, non-financial information and sustainability statements.

Before I move on to the other questions, would be really helpful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could address that particular question about the growing regulatory burden faced by our industry.

20:01

Lord Leong, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

I thank the noble Lord for that. Firstly. Let me just say that Firstly. Let me just say that Ministers and colleagues and officials from the department have regular, ongoing meetings with the sector itself, producers and downstream users through a whole range arrangement of of sector councils and all that. So we regularly do get feedback from them. And if any such requirements do hamper, we will obviously take note of that. But so far we have heard nothing from from from the users, downstream users or the producers alike.

Now, in respect of our obligation relating to international obligations, whether it is see bam, ETS or whatever, look, we are a country that comply with international regulations and and we have set out our case as far as Cbam and ETS concerned, and we will continue to do so.

20:02

Baroness Donaghy (Labour)

- -

And dealing with the whole question of energy costs. I'm sorry. question of energy costs. I'm sorry. Yes. No, I know. I'm perfectly happy to give way to backbenchers happy to give way to backbenchers if anyone wishes to intervene. It seems to me, my Lords, that the the announcement made today was absolutely essential, and I think that the government would have come under criticism. Have they not put forward such a statement? And I just would like to ask if it's consistent with the contents of the steel bill, which I think we're.

We've done day one of the Committee stage. We're about to have day two, but I'm assuming that everything that's been said today is consistent with the bill that's going through. And clearly, we will have to be. Other announcements made as. And when we see what's needed to support the industries. There must be some unknowns about all of this. And if the minister's got any indication of when we might know the end of the passing of the steel bill, that would be helpful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for for that point, those points. Firstly, that point, those points. Firstly, let me say something about the steel industry nationalisation bill steel industry nationalisation bill that's going before this House. We we are bringing in that bill to we are bringing in that bill to give us a framework to acquire a NI steel undertaking in the public steel undertaking in the public interest. And with that bill itself, once we do acquire in the public interest.

This aligns with our overall steel strategy, which is to encourage to to support our domestic supply of steel. And that is precisely what we're doing, is to increase the domestic supply, which is currently 30% to as much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as 50%. My Lords, we now as as as noble Lords will be aware on the Lords will be aware on the backbench section of of questions to the Minister on this statement, as there doesn't seem to be any as there doesn't seem to be any more backbenchers wishing to ask questions, but we are still waiting for the full complement of for the full complement of frontbenchers to continue next business. I suggest we adjourn briefly to a time to be announced briefly to a time to be announced on the Annunciator.

If I. I move that the House now adjourn on pleasure.

20:05

House Adjourned During Pleasure

My Lords. The question is that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until a time that will be pleasure until a time that will be announced on the Annunciators. As many as that I say. Content of the many as that I say. Content of the contrary, not content. the contents My My Lords My Lords report My Lords report of My Lords report of the National Security State Threats

20:16

Legislation: National Security (State Threats) – Report and all remaining stages Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

Bill Lord Hanson of Flint. >> I beg to move this report be now received.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

received. The question is that this report be now received as many as that of, say, content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. Third Reading of the National

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Security State Threats Bill. Lord Hanson of Flint I Lord Botham of this bill read a third

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. The question is that this bill be now read a third time. As many as the. That opinion will say content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move this bill. Do now pass. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now pass. My Lords, can I first of all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I first of all thank the officials of the House for the speedy turnaround of the amended Bill? I think it's a tribute to the dexterity that we've managed to turn this around in much managed to turn this around in much quicker time than I expected, and our thanks go to them. I also want to, if I may, thank the officials in the Home Office and all the people behind the bill who have given advice and support to Ministers on this crucial issue, including the security services and others, but particularly my private office, the bill manager and team and all the officials who are here.

I also want to thank, if I may, the official opposition for their courtesy and their intensive scrutiny of the bill, for their alternative suggestions, and I say that to them genuinely and also to the noble Lord Marks and Baroness Doocey on behalf of the Liberal Democrat group and also to other colleagues who have spoken, particularly in this case, the noble Lord Anderson and the noble Lord Alton, who particularly have been very engaged with this bill. This bill is done for a purpose, and the purpose is to allow my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State to have the necessary powers to consider how best to act after the determination of state threats. The Bill, as amended, will now return to another place in the House of Commons, where it will be further scrutinised, where I am confident the amendments made in this House will be accepted, and then I hope that the Bill will go for speedy consideration for Royal Assent and on Royal Assent. I give the assurance to the House that the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary, will take urgent action examining the state threats and, if necessary, bring forward appropriate measures as soon as possible.

It has been a pleasure to take this bill through the House. Over two days. There has been some tensions and some discussions, but I hope that at the end of the day, we are agreed as one that the bill will be a useful tool for the Secretary of State to help protect this country and its citizens from state threats, and I beg that the bill do now pass.

20:19

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lord, from these benches, I >> Lord, from these benches, I reiterate the thanks of all of us both to the noble Lord, the Minister, Lord Hanson, and his team, both in the House and in the Home Office, and his bill team generally for the enormous help that we've had and engaging with us, we've achieved, from our point of view, some very significant improvements to the bill. We are we believe that the purpose of the bill of which the noble Lord spoke has been achieved and achieved in with great speed and, generally speaking, in good humour, and we're happy that the Bill therefore do now pass.

20:20

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

My Lords. >> My Lords. >> My Lords, can I echo the thanks given by the noble Lord. Minister to the officials of the House for to the officials of the House for their actions this evening, in terms of moving us so quickly to this point in time? And can I thank the Minister for, as ever, a courteous, sometimes robust debate across the despatch box. We've had two very intense days debating this bill. We, as I said last week, these benches have always supported the principles of the bill and support its passage through Parliament.

There are some unfinished areas that the noble Lords Minister alluded to that we hope will be. We will return to in due course when a new bill, a more wider national security bill, comes before Parliament. But with those brief comments, I also hope that this bill do now pass.

20:21

Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)

- -

Well. >> My Lords, from the Crossbenches, on behalf of my noble and learned friend, Lord Anderson, of Ipswich, myself and my noble friends, we. We, myself and my noble friends, we. We, too, would echo the remarks of Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and also of Lord Marks, of Henley, and thanking the noble Lord, the Minister, for engaging with us, and for being willing to have long private discussions outside of the House, but to try and find a way forward to do what he has rightly said is the aim, the objective of everyone in this House, and that is to do everything we can to enhance the security of this country against the many threats which we face going forward to the new bill, which will already be, I'm sure, in preparation, I hope we'll have learnt 1 or 2 things from this experience, and I know that the noble Lord, the Minister, shares my passion for good governance and for pre-legislative scrutiny, for the involvement of select committees and the chance to adequately debate measures as and when they come to the House.

So I thank him for his courtesy and it's always a pleasure to work with a Minister who not only knows his subject, but is passionate about it, and we thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him for that and indeed his team of officials as well. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Question is that this bill do now pass as many as the that when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now pass as many as the that when you say content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn.

14:00

Oral questions: Ongoing pensions review and the impact of current private pension access rules on the financial security of working-age people living with a terminal diagnosis

14:36

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

permissive nature of these rules means individuals may experience various varying hurdles to access, depending on their scheme. The depending on their scheme. The government wishes to ensure a fair and compassionate approach to allowing access to pension savings in cases of terminal illness, and in cases of terminal illness, and will therefore now consider this issue in further detail.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for his answer. It is encouraging to hear the government will look again at this important issue. The rules on access to private pensions for terminally ill people were designed for an era when terminal diagnosis often meant death within months, but medicine has moved on. For

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page