Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the National Association of Local Councils. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 20. I do not intend to relitigate the arguments that have already been so clearly set out, but I wish to underline how pressing this issue becomes in the context of local government reorganisation.

Local government reorganisation introduces a level of structural uncertainty that pension schemes are simply not designed to absorb without flexibility. In particular, the costs facing pension schemes will not be ring-fenced during the LGR. In those circumstances, it is not inevitable that administrating authorities will respond with increased prudence. If so, does that not risk higher contribution rates being locked in? This would not be because of deteriorating fundamentals, but because of the uncertainty created by this Government.

There is also a timing problem. We do not yet know when the LGR will take place. It may well fall outside the actuarial valuation window, which would make access to interim contribution reviews not merely helpful but essential. Without them, schemes and employers can be left operating on assumptions that no longer reflect the reality of the structures beneath them.

I would also be grateful if the Minister would clarify the position on valuation cycles. In 2025, we did not set contribution rates for a three-year period. We face the very real prospect that some councils, whose rates are now being set, may not even exist by the time the next triennial valuation takes place.

This leads me to funding strategy statements. In the Minister’s view, have councils been given sufficient guidance from the Government to prepare these statements appropriately in the context of the LGR? These documents underpin long-term funding assumptions, yet many authorities are being asked to draft them without clarity on their future form or boundaries.

Finally and critically, the treatment of assets and liabilities following reorganisation must be handled with absolute care. Ensuring that these are carved up fairly and accurately post-LGR is vital to maintaining confidence in the system. That process must be demonstratively independent, transparent and robust, not left to negotiation under pressure.

Amendment 20 seeks not to obstruct reform but to ensure that, during a period of structural upheaval, pension schemes are not forced into unnecessary rigidity, excessive prudence or long-term misallocation of risk. For these reasons, I strongly support the principle behind the amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Davies—perhaps he can follow me and say how much he agrees with me this time. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 20 and will echo some of my noble friend Lady Scott’s points. Although promises made to members, once earned, are inviolate, the costs fall on the local taxpayer and employees, based on regular re-evaluations. These re-evaluations come thick and fast, rather like painting the Forth Bridge: once you have completed one, you start the next. I strongly support my friends in advancing the new clause, because it would place interim reviews on a statutory basis. However often and regularly they come, there will always be exceptional circumstances where a valuation is needed.

Like my noble friend Lady Scott, I think that structural change is an obvious circumstance where an interim review is not just needed but required. I will give an example. Local government workers can retire early on a full pension, having attained the age of 55, if they are made redundant on efficiency grounds. Local government reorganisation is nearly always, automatically, retirement on efficiency grounds. I estimate these strain costs, to be borne by the employer and local taxpayers, to be in excess of £1 billion, and we know that none of these figures have been taken into account in any of the financial analysis that the department has relied on to advance its plans for local government reorganisation.

That aside, the extreme turbulence caused by a comprehensive LGR—not just the odd county here or there but a comprehensive LGR by 2028—may require an interim review of employers’ rates, because of the different styles of councils being rammed together, as I explained earlier: operating versus outsourced. Without a reworking, schemes and employers could be operating not just on assumptions that no longer reflect the reality but on councils that do not even exist any more.

Administering authorities are being left in limbo as it is, so there must be at least the option to recalibrate the treatment of assets and liabilities following the reorganisation, representing a new landscape. This is important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, partly because of such a dramatic variation between the contribution rates of particular employers. But I do not agree with her reasoning because, as I tried to say on an earlier group, this is important because you cannot have one employer cross-subsidising another. I know it is not my role to debate the noble Baroness—that is for the Minister—but I seek to be helpful on this. The contribution rates have to bear in mind all the variabilities from one employer to another. There is a world of difference between a charity that is nearly bankrupt, for which the contributions are payable at that point, and a large tax-raising council with many thousands of employees to jam-spread the contributions over.

That is why it is proper that there are these variations; they are there for a good reason. Unfair as it may seem, that is the arithmetic. Otherwise, we end up with the moral hazard of the weakest employers, with the poorest covenant strength, going bust and everybody else having to pay for it. I realise that is not entirely encompassed by Amendment 20, but I wanted to respond to the noble Baroness because I have been in this situation in a fund of which I am a trustee, and that is what we had to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall now respond to Amendments 20 and 20A. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Altmann, for tabling them. Amendment 20 seeks to revise the existing LGPS regulations to make it easier for employers in the scheme to request interim reviews of contribution rates. I welcome the intention to increase flexibility in how surpluses in the LGPS are treated, but it is crucial for any flexibility to be underpinned by robust safeguards to protect the long-term funding position of those funds. It is important, equally, to make the distinction between how surpluses are treated in the LGPS scheme and in other defined benefit schemes. At the risk of repeating my words on the previous group, within other defined benefit schemes, trustees can choose to release surplus where scheme rules allow. Clauses 9 and 10, which we cannot wait to get to, will increase that flexibility.

In the LGPS, the triennial valuation process already ensures that contribution rates are reviewed every three years and enables withdrawal of surplus through reduced contribution rates where it is prudent to do so. The interim review process is available as an additional mechanism to allow scheme employers, particularly those at risk of exiting the scheme, to seek lower contribution rates between valuations. Interim reviews may take place if it appears likely to the administering authority that the liabilities have changed significantly since the last valuation, if there has been significant change in the ability of employers to meet their obligations or if the employer has requested a review.

I welcome the call from noble Lords opposite to make interim reviews easier to understand and more transparent. I agree that regulations on interim reviews require revision, including on these points. Indeed, the department has already stated this in a letter to administering authorities—that was in March 2025. I understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, was making about the vicissitudes of the market and other changes that occur. Without wishing to be overly sarcastic, we could posit having reviews on an almost continual basis to try to anticipate market movements, changes in demographics or other external shocks. I am not for a minute suggesting that that was the intention behind the amendment, but it proves the point that, if we are going to break up the cycle of valuation, when and how we do it is a question for further debate. That possibly addresses some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, was making as well. It is important that any changes to regulations are properly considered and avoid unforeseen consequences.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The reorganisation is very different from the day-to-day running of the local authorities. Once they are reorganised, it will calm down and balance out again. But what worries me is whether the Government are working with local government pension schemes on the impact of these changes. If not, why not and will they do so?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Actually, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, anticipates this, which is actually useful on the point that my noble friend made. I will come to that in a second. I was just about to say that of course we are aware. I am afraid that the noble Baroness was not in her place when we discussed local government reorganisation in the first group, earlier this afternoon in Committee.

Actuaries are aware of the local government review and the potential impact on contribution rates. In response to this, actuaries could have a number of options. They could calculate a harmonised contribution rate for the new unitary authorities proposed, set out a path to target harmonised contribution rates if desired or continue to treat them separately and do a contribution review when the local government reorganisation position is clearer.

This is probably as good a point as any to reassure my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, whose mastery of technology never fails to impress: my colleagues from the MHCLG very much support the DWP on this Bill and we are working collectively on elements that relate to the Local Government Pension Scheme; so do not worry about that.

It is important that any changes to regulations are properly considered and avoid unforeseen consequences. The views of employers, funds and others within the sector are a vital part of this process, and making amendments to this Bill would prevent the sector and scheme employers from having their say on whether the change will work for them. The department has already committed to launching a consultation this year, which will cover the full range of issues with the current rules.

Amendment 20A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, seeks to benchmark Local Government Pension Scheme employer contributions on an annual basis. I recognise the noble Baroness’s desire to increase transparency on employer contributions and to set them in a wider context, including council tax. LGPS funds are already required to publish a valuation report and a rates adjustment certificate following each valuation. This certificate sets out the employer contribution rates as a percentage of pay to be paid by each employer in the fund in each of the three years of the valuation period. Employer contribution rates are set locally and vary widely across the scheme, depending on the funding level of the fund and the covenant of the individual employer. It is not appropriate to set a benchmark for employer contributions for funds as this would compromise local accountability.

I will come on to talk a little about council tax rates and contributions, because they have been mentioned by many noble Lords. Before that, I repeat the point I made in the previous group. I am afraid that the amendment seems to neglect the fact that 50% of LGPS employer contributions are paid by employers that are not local authorities, so we cannot focus on just council tax as the be-all and end-all.

However, those local authority employers do make up half that funding. Those local authority employers in the LGPS meet the cost of employer contributions from their total income, of which council tax is only a proportion. It varies considerably among different councils across the country, depending on their other sources of income, which are myriad. They include business rates, grants, Section 106 contributions and CIL. They can include any income gained from other charges and levies, whether parking or licensing. The list goes on. I defer always to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and his decades of experience on my next-door council, Barnet. He and noble Lords in the Room will understand the wide range of income sources that councils have.

New Homes: Target

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is essential that the local government reorganisation and devolution process does not hold up the production of local plans. My Government have made that absolutely clear and are following up with councils that have delayed local plans. Where the new strategic plans are being made, they can be made in spite of reorganisation, and the data used for them will be transferred as soon as the reorganisation arrangements are complete.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister about what the Government are doing, but we have a country with the number of planning permissions granted in the past 12 months at the lowest level since 2013 and construction costs rising by up to 40%. How are the Government now going to deliver the at least 1 million homes that the previous Tory Government did in their last term, let alone the promised 1.5 million in the next 3.5 years left in this Government?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On buildout rates—the number of planning permissions in place that are not built out—I think we can look to the previous Government for the answer to that question. We are changing incentives in the housing market, giving local authorities the tools that they need to speed up delivery, requiring developers to commit to delivery timeframes and giving councils the power to refuse to consider applications from developers that consistently fail to build out quickly enough, as well as exploring a delayed homes penalty. As well as all the positive-side and demand-side incentives that we are putting in place, I think that will make the biggest change to housing delivery that we have seen in many generations.

Business Improvement Districts: Town Centre Renewal

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I greatly value the role played by religious buildings from all denominations in our public spaces, and the right reverend Prelate was right to refer to some of the development that has taken place. The Pride in Place Strategy sets out how we will deliver £5 billion over 10 years to 244 neighbourhoods, which means that our communities can take part in developing their neighbourhoods in a way that is right for them. We will deliver £20 million of funding and support to be spent by local neighbourhood boards, and we are encouraging all members of the community, including community organisations, to get involved with those boards to drive local renewal. We will then have a separate pride in place impact fund, which will deliver a cash injection of £150 million to an additional 95 places, to be spent to improve high streets and community spaces.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, although business improvement districts work hard to revive our town centres—for which we thank them—many of them face tightening fiscal environments, despite the previous answers from the Minister. Business rates are rising, employers are dealing with higher national insurance contributions and the freeze in personal tax thresholds compounds pressures on local workers—and this coupled with costly local government reorganisation. Do the Government believe that this combination of rising costs and administrative upheaval is helping or hindering town centre renewal and local growth? What assessment have they made of the impact of these measures on our town centres?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The local government reorganisation that is taking place will create more resilient and stronger local councils, which will be able to support their communities with the suite of activity that we have provided in the pride in place funding, to make sure that they are developing and that the community spaces they value are being supported and developed in a way that is right for them. Local government has been absolutely denuded of funding over the past 14 years, so I will not take any lessons on how to support local government from the Tory Benches in this House. It is really important that we get local government on a firm footing with its funding, so that it can support the local communities that have felt that their high streets have been neglected for far too long.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Government for accepting the substance of my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment —an important step that these Benches strongly support. We now look forward to scrutinising in full the regulations establishing a national scheme for the delegation of planning decisions through the affirmative resolution procedure.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on accepting such a sensible amendment. She was kind enough to write to me about non-hazardous reservoirs. She said in that letter that the regulations and guidance will be kept under review. I urge her to use her good offices to ensure that both Houses will be able to review that. I once again record my huge disappointment that the non-hazardous reservoirs legislation will not come into effect before 2028, which is far too late, given the impact. Reservoirs are operating below capacity already, and the deficit we will face in Yorkshire over the next year especially is deeply regrettable.

Local Elections

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, three weeks ago, in this Chamber, the Minister assured the House that the Government intended to go ahead with all local elections in May 2026. What has changed in just three weeks? Were local government and the Electoral Commission consulted on these changes?

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. All local government elections that are scheduled for 2026 will go ahead unless there are exceptional circumstances. These elections, which are inaugural elections for four new mayors in the areas concerned, have not taken place before, and my colleagues have taken the opportunity to reflect on the most effective way of ensuring that those mayoral institutions are best placed to deliver.

We know that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. Moving forward, we are seeking to facilitate the establishment of those foundational strategic authorities to build the local capacity and collaboration that is needed ahead of accessing mayoral powers. We think that this will make them stronger in the long run and make sure that those authorities are built on firm foundations. That is why the decision has been taken to have those mayoral elections in 2028. My colleague, Minister Fahnbulleh, spoke to all local authorities on 3 December.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association, and the National Association of Local Councils.

I hope the House will forgive me if I begin by noting a certain irony in the title of the Bill. It contains the words “community empowerment”, yet the measures before us would appear to do precisely the opposite, empowering the centre rather than the community. As we reflect on that, we cannot ignore the democratic chill cast by the Government’s decision to cancel the forthcoming local mayoral elections. When democratic participation is suspended for administrative convenience, it becomes difficult to sustain the claim that community consent lies at the heart of these reforms. Instead, what emerges is a model of compulsion over consent. These proposals risk leaving communities without a meaningful voice, enabling the Secretary of State to redraw local government boundaries, restructure authorities and compel mergers, against local wishes.

The introduction of sweeping powers under new Section 109B, and others, marks a striking departure from the voluntary, negotiated, deal-by-deal approach that has defined English devolution to date. That approach was rooted in respect for local identity, geography and choice. The Bill before us seems to move away from that principle with unsettling ease. Our discussions with colleagues and stakeholders underline something fundamental: that local consent is not an optional extra. It is the democratic foundation of any credible programme of localism, yet this Bill weakens that foundation at the very moment when it should be reinforced.

The Government claim that reforms empower localities, but too often we see the power devolved in name only, while genuine authority remains firmly centralised. Without clarity on what powers are truly being passed down, how responsibilities differ from those already held and how local leaders will be held to account, there is a real risk of creating an accountability gap at the very centre of the system.

These concerns are sharpened still further by the Bill’s uncertain financial implications. Community empowerment is impossible without financial empowerment. Local authorities cannot reasonably be asked to shoulder the burdens or the liabilities of their neighbours; nor can local taxpayers be expected to underwrite centrally imposed restructuring. Yet the Bill provides no assurance that council tax will not rise, no clarity on whether solvent councils may be required to absorb the debts of failing ones, and no explanation whatever of how these reforms will deliver value for money. Additionally, we are still in the dark as to how these new mayoralties will be paid for.

We hear much about synergies and efficiencies but nothing about what they are, how they will be realised, or what modelling, if any, underpins them. Rhetoric is not a substitute for a costed plan. The Government must commit to publishing a detailed cost-benefit assessment. Information available shows that the creation of more top-tier councils in place of the county councils may increase costs year on year, not reduce them. It reverses the economy of scale and offers no prospect of long-term savings.

Recent freedom of information disclosures reported by ITV Meridian indicate that the councils in Essex, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, and on the Isle of Wight have already set aside £11.22 million for 2025-26 to support this transition, with more than £1 million being spent in the current year alone. In Hampshire, over £500,000 has already been allocated to consultants for local government reorganisation. How can local taxpayers be assured that this represents value for money? Will there be a transparent framework, underpinned by evidence, to demonstrate whether these substantial outlays can genuinely be recovered through future efficiency gains?

This reorganisation will impose real costs on our constituents, at a time when many of them are already paying more in income tax and national insurance, whether through their earnings or their pension contributions, because of this Government’s choice to value welfare over work. We cannot in good conscience simply accept that reform must be expensive without being provided a credible vision for future savings and long-term fiscal stability.

Nowhere is that risk more acute than in social care. Adults’ and children’s social care are among the most vital, sensitive and fragile of all our local services, but the Bill is silent on how these functions will operate across new combined structures, how responsibilities will be shared and how accountability will be maintained. At a time when care systems are already stretched to their limit, reorganisation without clarity is not merely unwise but dangerous. Vulnerable people cannot be left to navigate the fog created by institutional reform.

This is not the only area where ambiguity prevails. The Bill creates new regulatory layers, including a local audit office, the relationship of which with existing bodies is left largely undefined in the Bill. We all agree on the importance of rigorous oversight, but the creation of new regulators must be justified by purpose, rather than just by preference. Likewise, spatial development strategies, critical tools for planning and housing, are referenced in a manner that leaves scope, governance and oversight uncertain. Without clarity, there is a real risk of slowing down the very growth and housebuilding the Government claim the Bill will accelerate.

I will touch on the significant alterations proposed to some of the Local Government Pension Scheme arrangements. When local government reorganisation occurs, and assets and liabilities are carved up, it is essential that independent assessments are undertaken, to allow proper oversight of what funds and actuaries in each region are doing. We must also explore the workability of the new duty requiring combined authorities to assist in identifying or developing LGPS investment opportunities. These are legitimate concerns that such a requirement will place authorities in direct conflict with the scheme managers’ fiduciary responsibilities, which must remain independent and focus solely on the interests of the scheme members.

Taken together, these examples illustrate a broad problem: the lack of clarity speaks to a wider issue in the Bill’s design. This is a substantial piece of legislation that is constitutionally significant in both scale and ambition, yet the Government have offered no clear explanation of what it is ultimately for. Is the goal efficiency, local empowerment, public service reform, fiscal consolidation, housebuilding or economic growth? A Bill of this breadth and consequence should be founded on a coherent purpose, yet the rationale before us is diffused, undefined and, at times, contradictory.

The Bill professes to empower communities but many of its consequences appear likely to impose costs on them instead. New mayoral precepts, expanding borrowing powers, increased parking charges and the creation of further layers of local bureaucracy, including mayoral commissioners, will all place additional burdens on our residents. If that is empowerment, it is of a kind that, we believe, comes with a higher council tax bill attached to it.

The House will recall that we have made the point previously that uncertainty, particularly in planning, is the enemy of delivery. If responsibilities for housing, infrastructure and spatial strategy are to shift, the transition must be clear, orderly and transparent. Developers, councils and communities need certainty, not disruption. Local authorities understand their housing needs, their land, their constraints and their potential better than anyone in Whitehall ever could; therefore, reform should strengthen that local knowledge, not sideline it, as the Bill does.

Consistent with that theme, I will address another important issue: local identity. Imposing reorganisation from above, drawing maps in Whitehall and instructing local people to accept new boundaries pose a genuine threat to the character and cohesion of the communities we represent. Local identity is the foundation on which trust, participation and civic pride are built. We must also reflect the role played by our town and parish councils. They should and could be custodians of our children’s parks, our green spaces and the amenities that give neighbourhoods their distinct character. If their powers are to be subsumed into larger unitaries, dominated by broader, macro-level concerns, how can we ensure that the priorities of those towns and parishes across our country will still be recognised and respected? These councils are not peripheral; they are central to the everyday life and well-being of our communities. In fact, we believe that we should be encouraging more towns and parish councils when representation is subsumed by a larger geographic area.

If the Bill is truly to live up to its title, it must move from the rhetoric of empowerment to the practice of it. It must restore local democracy, not dilute it. It must clarify responsibilities, not obscure them, and it must build trust, not central control. Communities do not require permission to have a voice; they require the power to use it. True devolution rests on partnership, consent and clarity, not on imposition or ambiguity.

In Committee, I will challenge the Government on whether the Bill meets that aim, not only in areas where reorganisation is already under way but in areas such as London and Greater Manchester, where devolution exists but we believe it could deliver better. If the Government wish to empower communities, let the Bill begin by listening to them; only then can they claim with any confidence to speak in their name. As drafted, the Bill takes power away, increases costs for working people and, most of all, leaves communities without a voice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand that there has been no agreement in the usual channels for the Bill to be committed to a Grand Committee. I put on record that it is very disappointing that the Government have tabled this Motion without the agreement of the usual channels.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip consulted the usual channels in the usual manner. I am also aware that he spoke to some key Peers with an interest in the Bill.

NHS Industrial Action

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I agree that it is essential that we move forward to modernise industrial relations, which is exactly what this Government are doing. We know that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay, but we have to move to a situation where there is more communication, negotiation and space for collaboration in order to deliver our objectives and take people with us.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, during the doctors’ strike in 2023, I was left to die, with untreated gallstones and sepsis, in an NHS hospital. The only thing they offered me during that time was, “Do not resuscitate”. I am here today only because my friends and family managed to get me transferred to a private hospital for emergency surgery, just in time. I thank all of them for everything they did. But I know that, sadly, many others would not be able to do that, so when will enough be enough and what will the Government do to ensure that doctors fulfil their duty to patients? They exist only to do that and to serve.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am very sorry to hear of the noble Baroness’s unfortunate experience and pleased to see her back on the Benches, fighting her corner. This is absolutely the backbone of what this Government intend to do. We knew when we came into government that standards had slipped. The pressures on medical staff have been enormous and it is our job to transform the service. That is what we have put in place.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

We will listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has to say and see whether any of these issues will be put to a further vote.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Motion F to agree with Lords Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. This was a really important amendment, and I am very glad that it has been dealt with in this way, as has Motion G and Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey on the important issue of assets of community value. I look forward to seeing them put in place in future.

We have felt compelled to bring Motion J1 back to the attention of your Lordships’ House. Although we will not press the matter further, it is important that the concerns are placed clearly on record. We do so because the Government’s previous response did not engage with the substance of the issues at stake.

First, the Government have sidestepped the statutory issue entirely. This amendment would place a clear, unambiguous duty on spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield development and urban densification. That duty matters. Yet the Minister’s response relied almost exclusively on guidance, prospective consultations and future proposals. None of that explains why this responsibility should not sit in primary legislation. As we all know, the system is failing precisely because guidance can be overlooked and too often is. Brownfield opportunities are not ignored because they do not exist; they are ignored because the framework does not require public bodies or developers to pursue them.

Secondly, the Government’s response failed to address the sustainability dimension. This amendment is not simply about land categories. It is about shaping the behaviour of the built environment, supporting mixed, walkable communities, reducing travel distances and aligning development patterns with our environmental and economic goals. None of this featured in the Government’s reply, which focused solely on whether brownfield land is being sufficiently identified rather than on how our planning system directs the form, character and quality of the development. Without statutory underpinning, these wider sustainability objectives will continue to be treated as optional—desirable, certainly, but dispensable when inconvenient.

Let me finally address the Minister’s suggestion that our amendment would heighten the risk of legal challenge and that clarity in the NPPF makes such a duty unnecessary. In effect, the Minister defended the status quo, but legal challenge is a feature of any meaningful statutory change—indeed, of any planning decision. The possibility of challenge is not an argument for inaction; it is inherent in the evolution of any policy. A clearer statutory duty would, over time, reduce conflict by giving decision-makers firmer parameters and greater certainty.

I acknowledge that the Minister wrote over the weekend outlining the Government’s intention. Her letter stated that,

“the revised NPPF will provide even clearer policies to drive decision-making, including on brownfield land”.

We accept the Government saying again today that national policy is the most appropriate route for setting planning decisions, that the proposed changes will mark a step change and that they expect these reforms to meet the objectives of the “brownfield first” principle.

However, if Ministers truly believe that these revisions will drive brownfield development, then they must be willing and able to show evidence of success. The proportion of brownfield used must rise meaningfully as a direct result of these changes. Warm words about future consultations are not enough; they must turn into action. This House must be able to see the data and interrogate it, track progress and hold the Government firmly to account. If Ministers are confident in their claims, they should have no hesitation in committing to return to the House with clear, measurable evidence that these reforms are genuinely delivering a brownfield first approach in practice, not just in rhetoric. Until that proof is forthcoming, our concerns remain.

We live on a small island. Food security is critical in the world we live in. This Bill has taken our agricultural land for energy use and housing. Greenfields produce food for our nation; wheat and potatoes cannot be produced on urban brownfield sites.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate; I will address the points that have been raised during our discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Banner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their endorsement of our position on Motion F. I always hope that when a good idea comes forward, we will not hesitate to accept it; that was a good idea, and we will be moving forward with it.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I very much look forward to the debates we will have on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It is a different approach to assets of community value. It expands the definitions of assets of community value, including sporting and recreational assets, it gives longer for communities to do the work needed to enact this right, and it gives a right to buy approach, which I hope we will have good debates on.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, made a very important point about avoiding the proliferation of thresholds, and I will take that back. I hope he will continue to work with us on that, as he does on other issues.

In relation to the NPPF consultation, I appreciate that delay causes uncertainty. We are hoping to do it by the end of the year. Planning is a dynamic process. When we were having debates with the Housing Minister and some developers, he said that they cannot always be waiting for the next thing to come along. This is the planning Bill at the moment. The NPPF is the NPPF. We want people to get on and build the infrastructure and housing we need. There may be changes in the future, but planning is always going to be dynamic and will have to change as other things change. However, it is important we make sure the NPPF is fit for purpose, and we get this planning Bill through so we can get on and deliver what we need to.

I hope I picked up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on assets of community value in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

On the important point about brownfield sites and contaminated sites made by the noble Baroness, the viability PPG already factors in potential brownfield challenges. The guidance on defining costs notes that brownfield sites may have abnormal costs associated with them. We are continuing to look at this as we go through because there are some sites with high levels of contamination. The noble Baroness may be aware that I visited Stoke-on-Trent recently, which has some sites on former mining areas. They are an issue, and we continue to keep it under review, as she would expect.

Her points about the Minister’s announcement on railways stations make the point that we have been arguing around brownfield sites. For the most part, the land around railway stations can be considered brownfield sites. We want to make sure that we make the most of those sites, which have good transport links and are often essential to the economy of an area. This is why the Minister felt that it was appropriate, in that case, to make that a consideration—that is, where it looked like applications there might be refused, they could be called in. Of course, communities still get the opportunity to have their say in that process.

Election Law

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are looking very hard at expanding the identification forms that we can use to make sure that nobody who is entitled to vote is excluded, including bank cards and so on, so that we make sure to give the widest possible spectrum of ID that people can use to exercise their vote.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have claimed that the local council elections should go ahead unless there is strong justification otherwise. However, when pressed, they admit that local elections may be cancelled next year due to unitary restructuring. This is creating uncertainty for councils, political parties and, most importantly, local people. Will the Government come clean and publish an open and transparent statement on its intentions for the 2026 local elections? What is going ahead and what will be cancelled? Also, do the Government agree with the Electoral Commission that elections should not be delayed by more than one year?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think I have made the Government’s position on the 2026 elections very clear from the Dispatch Box. It is our intention that all elections during 2026 will go ahead.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

Gosh, that was brief. I will say a few words on behalf of our Benches. I apologise that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is stuck—there are no trains anywhere—so the House will have me, very briefly.

We have been pleased with the engagement that we have had with the Ministers throughout Report and leading up to Third Reading today, which has brought about some important changes in the Bill, including on the issue of how we plan for electric vehicles in infrastructure, and the commitment that the Minister has made to look again at spatial standards for housing so that hopefully we can ensure that more young homeless people can find accommodation in the future.

The amendment that the Minister ably introduced—I am grateful for the many meetings about it that she and colleagues had with me and other Peers on these Benches—tries to give us reassurance that the environment will have the safeguards that are needed in this new process of strategic planning. I am particularly grateful that she has brought forward regulations—not guidance, which was an issue of concern—because we need regulations to provide the necessary clarity and transparency for those of us who are concerned about the need for environmental safeguards and the appropriate way in which the negative effects of developments will be addressed.

Can the Minister make clear how the mitigation hierarchy, a very well-established environmental principle which has served this country and indeed many countries around the world so well for so long, will apply in this new approach to strategic level planning for housing? How the mitigation hierarchy in this new process of EDPs will provide the necessary safeguards for the environment?

It is my hope that it will reduce the risk of viable impact avoidance and mitigation solutions being overlooked—I say it is my hope; at this stage, that is all it can be. However, it will definitely make it much clearer for those of us concerned about the environment just how Natural England will make its decisions. What evidence will it use in order to move forward with EDPs? That will give us some reassurance that the environmental protections will be in place. If they are not, we know there will be legal challenge. That is neither in the interests of the developers or, indeed, of the environment that will suffer.

It is a compromise on the amendment I introduced on Report, and I accept that. For some, will be a compromise too far; I accept that as well. I am a Liberal Democrat and prepared to face the political reality and the evidence that this Government believe this new approach with EDPs will deliver the housebuilding that we all want, while at the same time giving us on these Benches and others some security that the environmental backstops will be in place. That is what we need and what our ever-diminishing wildlife and habitats desperately need.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening and for bringing forward Amendment number 1, which this side of the House supports. We also take note of Amendment 2.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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