English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the right reverend Prelate for their amendments.

As drafted, Amendment 87 would be much more burdensome for the Secretary of State and require yearly reporting via the annual report on English devolution, rather than every five years, as the noble Baroness intended. The annual report, introduced by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, is designed to update Parliament on the progress that government is making in implementing devolution across England, rather than monitoring progress on individual policy areas. This amendment does not align with the focus of the annual report, but I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are already committed to assessing the impact of devolution on local economic growth and public service delivery.

On the mayoral strategic authorities receiving an integrated funding settlement, we already have an integrated settlement outcomes framework in place. This is published on GOV.UK. The framework outlines a number of outcome indicators and outputs which the mayoral strategic authority will be assessed against to determine whether it is delivering effectively for its residents. For example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s outcomes framework includes several outcome indicators relating to economic growth and public service delivery. This includes the number of supported businesses that have increased productivity, and measuring the success of support for residents with long-term health conditions, getting them back into employment. As more mayoral strategic authorities receive an integrated funding settlement, more mayors will be subjected to the integrated settlement outcomes framework.

At the local authority level, the Government recently published the local outcomes framework, which enables outcomes-based performance measured against key national priorities delivered at the local level. The outcomes that are measured include: economic prosperity and regeneration, adult social care, and child poverty.

The outcomes and metrics for each local authority area will be published on GOV.UK through a new digital tool. This will improve transparency and enable the public, local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to have a shared view of progress for all areas in England. The performance against the outcomes and metrics for each local area will also allow local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to work together to identify what needs to be done at a local level by different partners to tackle local challenges.

The noble Baroness also seeks in her amendment to ensure value for money for residents. The introduction of local scrutiny committees for mayoral strategic authorities will allow local areas to hold their mayors to account, including by undertaking value-for-money assessments. Although I welcome the spirit of this amendment, it would place undue burden on the Secretary of State, and we cannot support it.

On Amendment 184, the quality of service delivery by strategic authorities, the efficiency with which they deliver their functions, and the value for money they provide are matters of importance to Members on all sides of the House. As new powers and functions are devolved through the Bill it will be essential that scrutiny and accountability keep pace, ensuring that all strategic authorities are well run and operate effectively.

I have already touched on the role of local scrutiny committees and the integrated settlement outcomes framework. In addition, strategic authorities are expected to adhere to the process and principles set out in the English devolution accountability framework. This includes the scrutiny protocol, which encourages the engagement of residents through mayors’ question times and other equivalent opportunities for the public and journalists to put questions directly to elected mayors.

As part of our commitment to effective governance, we are also undertaking annual conversations with strategic authorities. These are regular engagements with strategic authorities, intended to foster an understanding of strategic authorities’ roles and challenges, sharing learning from across the sector to drive positive outcomes for residents. Strategic authorities are also subject to the best value duty, including inspections and, if necessary, the appointment of commissioners.

Where parliamentarians may have concerns about the performance of strategic authorities, it is entirely appropriate that they raise them with the Government through the usual means. I trust that your Lordships will see how strategic authorities will be subject to both non-statutory and statutory mechanisms to drive performance, efficiency and value for money.

I thank the right reverend Prelate for Amendment 318A. My noble friend will be more than happy to meet him and his colleagues to discuss these issues further. Through the Bill we are building on the foundations of the Localism Act 2011 with a more effective community right to buy and a new duty on local authorities to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. We regularly engage with local government and the community sector to understand how existing powers are working on the ground. We know from this engagement that the current community right-to-bid provisions are not strong enough to enable communities to protect valued local assets for future use, which is why we are strengthening them with the introduction of community right to buy. This will help communities safeguard a range of assets that play a key role in community life, including green spaces such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments. We will explore the best way to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme going forward.

On the parts of the Localism Act which relate to community rights and local services, we think that effective neighbourhood governance is the right route to help to ensure that local decisions are made more effectively by people who understand local needs. A core goal of neighbourhood governance is smarter, more responsive decision-making that is closer to communities, giving communities a greater say in what matters to them.

Through regulations we will set out the criteria for the arrangements that must be in place. We will continue to engage with local government and the community sector to ensure that we understand the best way to do this and the effectiveness of current community empowerment frameworks such as the Localism Act. Although it is crucial to ensure that communities have access to pleasant and attractive environments that provide the spaces they need for recreation and growing food, there are other ways the Government are doing this, including through the planning system.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have consulted on a new planning policy framework designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler local plans. It proposes a number of changes to improve the approach to climate change and the delivery of green infrastructure, nature-based solutions and community facilities. We are analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course. All these measures seek to ensure access to community spaces and the ability to shape local decisions. An annual report is not necessary or proportionate. As usual, the Government will continue to keep all policies under review. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I think we all agree that it is crucial that we have oversight over the consequences of legislation as big as this. Five years down the line, how will smaller strategic authorities have delivered, in comparison with the larger strategic authorities? How costly will the transitions alone have been? Will local people be better off and feel their taxes are being well spent? Will local service delivery be better and more efficient? These are all questions that the Government should answer and be held accountable for. I understand the views of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that local councils and strategic authorities in the future will also have to be doing this work. But it is for the Government to look at the system as a whole and to ensure that it is delivering what it is intended to deliver in this Bill.

Local government reorganisation and the creation of new strategic authorities with new functions should not be done just for the sake of it or to make life simpler for Whitehall. It should be done to ensure that it serves a principled and practical purpose, as we made clear on the very first day in Committee. Our amendments would allow just that and help to inform Parliament of how to move forward in the future. I hope that the Government will see the value of these amendments to assess the real-world outcomes of their efforts.

I thank the Minister for explaining how some of these challenges will be implemented. I need to read Hansard tomorrow to see whether we still have concerns. My overall concern remains—that there is still a lack of good parliamentary scrutiny in the first years after this big reorganisation of local government in this country. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, for their amendments relating to the new health improvement and health inequalities duties. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for her helpful contribution.

On Amendment 132, I stress our ambition to enable combined authorities and combined county authorities, which are the experts in their local areas, to take a broad view of the factors that shape health and drive health inequalities in their areas. The Bill illustrates a number of important health determinants to give clarity to our intent and indicate areas where authorities are likely to be able to act. It already includes standards of housing and matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle. It also explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health.

Setting out large numbers of individual determinants risks restricting flexibility, because it would imply that the specific determinants to be considered are only those which are set out in detail in the Bill. Indeed, the proposed amendment would have the effect of limiting the scope of “general health determinants.” It would set out a narrower list of general health determinants by removing the scope for combined authorities to consider

“any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors”,

and focus instead only on matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle, rather than also considering wider public health and systemic matters which might determine life expectancy or the state of health of a person.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall for her Amendments 133 and 134. However, these amendments would add an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on combined and combined county authorities. The Secretary of State would be unable to make such an assessment without placing detailed reporting requirements on combined and combined county authorities. We want to shift power away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best. The requirement for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the

“consistency of implementation of the duty”

is not compatible with our fundamental proposition that combined authorities and combined county authorities are best placed to judge how to put the duty into effect locally.

Furthermore, the requirement on the Secretary of State to define a minimum standard against which to assess authorities would unhelpfully impose a degree of uniformity and have the unfortunate effect of turning a minimum government standard into a default standard. This would constrain local ambition. More broadly, alongside this new duty, we want to simplify requirements in relation to the planning and delivery of health and care services to create more flexibility for areas to respond to the needs of their local populations.

However, I reassure my noble friend that we will pay close attention to how the new duty embeds in the work of combined authorities and combined county authorities to understand the impact that it is having over time, including the different ways in which authorities respond to it. With these reassurances, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, withdraws her amendment and my noble friend Lady Royall does not move hers.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her amendments. Ensuring that we have a holistic view of housing—not just the quality but the quantity of housing and the role that it plays in health—makes it easier for authorities to respond to this part of the Bill. Explicitly recognising the effects of diet and physical activity on our health is not contentious but will also help authorities to facilitate healthier lifestyles in their communities. I hope that the Minister will give his continued consideration to these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all concern Schedule 25, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors. We believe that the schedule, as drafted, lacks the appropriate democratic safeguards.

The current test in the Bill for whether the Secretary of State is satisfied that regulations can be made is “appropriate”. That threshold is notably low and subjective for the exercise of very wide powers. These provisions allow for conferral, modification and transfer of significant public functions, including through the amendment of primary legislation. It is therefore reasonable to expect a more disciplined legal standard.

We on these Benches believe that replacing “appropriate” with “necessary and proportionate” would align the exercise of these powers with well-established public law principles. The amendments would require the Secretary of State not only to justify the objective being pursued but to demonstrate that the chosen intervention is genuinely necessary and no more extensive than is needed. The amendments do not prevent action but rather ensure that such action is properly constrained and transparent.

I turn to the issue of consent. Amendments 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the written consent of affected strategic authorities and mayors before they exercise their powers. They would therefore introduce a vital democratic safeguard. As drafted, the duty is limited to consultation, which does not guarantee that local views will meaningfully shape an outcome. Given that these regulations may significantly alter the functions and balance of power within local government structures, it is only right that those directly affected have a decisive voice. Put simply, changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent.

A consent requirement would ensure that changes are made in genuine partnership with local leaders, rather than being imposed from the centre. It would also further enhance transparency and allow both Parliament and the public to see clearly that reforms have secured local agreement.

Amendments 158, 160, 164, 166 and 168 address a clear inconsistency in the drafting of the schedule by applying an established safeguard to provisions where it is currently absent. In Part 1, the Secretary of State is rightly constrained by the requirement to consider whether regulations are justified by reference to the effective exercise of the function concerned. However, despite later parts conferring powers of equal significance, such as the transfer and reallocation of functions, no such discipline is applied. This risks creating a situation in which substantial structural changes to local government could be made without a clearly defined statutory purpose. By inserting this test alongside the requirement that any intervention be necessary and proportionate, the amendment would ensure that all uses of these powers were guided by consistent and principled frameworks.

I turn finally to the amendments on pilot schemes. My amendments seek to place sensible and proportionate safeguards around the use of pilot schemes. As drafted, the Bill confers very broad discretion on the Secretary of State, with limited external scrutiny. Pilot schemes are by their nature experimental. It is therefore essential that they are subject to robust transparency and evaluation requirements. The amendments would ensure that impact reports, consultation responses and written consents were made public. This would strengthen accountability and allow both Parliament and the public to understand how the schemes are operating in practice.

The requirement for an independent evaluation introduces an objective assessment of whether a pilot scheme has achieved its intended outcomes, rather than relying solely on the views of those involved in its delivery. Removing the ability to extend pilot schemes repeatedly prevents what could otherwise become a rolling arrangement that avoids proper scrutiny. The introduction of the requirement to demonstrate measurable improvements supported by evidence, and to show that benefits outweigh any adverse impacts, ensures that pilot schemes are not only well intentioned but effective in practice.

Finally—and I am sorry that I have taken so long—the proposal would require all regulations under this schedule to be subject to the affirmative procedure, accompanied by a clear written statement, which would reinforce parliamentary oversight and ensure that the exercise of these significant powers is properly justified and transparent. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for all these amendments. I think that there are 26, so it might take a little time to reply with a depth of understanding.

Amendments 150, 152 and 155 seek to alter the wording of the statutory test which the Secretary of State must apply when taking a decision to make regulations to confer a function on a strategic authority or to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. The statutory test as currently drafted in the Bill is already sufficiently robust. The statutory test already requires the Secretary of State to be convinced that any regulations are appropriate for the effective exercise of a function. Introducing a more restrictive statutory test which would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that regulations are necessary and proportionate could lead to central government being too cautious in using Schedule 25 to proactively make changes to the devolution framework, and could discourage government from expanding the framework in future.

Amendments 158, 160, 163, 164, 166 and 168 seek to apply the amended statutory test to each of the ways in which the Secretary of State can use Schedule 25 to make regulations to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. These amendments are not necessary, as the statutory test does not need to be repeated throughout the schedule. The Bill introduces the statutory test in Part 1 of the schedule, which relates to both the conferral and modification of functions. Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule provide more detail on how the Secretary of State can modify functions, and therefore the statutory test still applies to Parts 2, 3 and 4.

I turn to Amendments 151, 153, 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169. These amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to obtain local consent before conferring a function on a strategic authority or modifying how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. It is right that the Bill includes an extensive list of the authorities and people which the Secretary of State must consult before a decision is taken on the conferral or modification of a function for a strategic authority. This list includes affected mayors, strategic authorities, local authorities and any bodies or persons who are currently involved in exercising the function. In London, the Secretary of State will also need to consult the Greater London Authority functional bodies and the London Assembly. However, it would not be right that the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of all the authorities and people who would be affected by a decision on the conferral or modification of functions.

Schedule 25 allows the Government to expand and update the devolution framework for each class of strategic authority in future. This approach moves us on from the era of bespoke devolution deals for each area, which were time-consuming and complicated to implement, and allows us to more quickly expand and deepen devolution across the country. Under this new and more standardised approach to devolution, it would not be right for an authority or person to effectively have a veto which prevented the Secretary of State conferring or modifying a function on a whole class of strategic authority.

If individual authorities or mayors had a veto, they could limit the rollout of further devolution and hold back opportunities and prosperity for other areas in England. Also, as currently drafted, Amendment 161 appears to mistakenly require the Mayor of London and the London Assembly to provide their consent to the modification of functions which affect strategic authorities outside London.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify what he said about one size fits all? Does that mean that no unitary authority will in future be able to devolve any service down to a town or parish council?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are basically saying that, where we can do that, we will, but where there are not the structures of a local, parish or town council, we might not be able to do that. The best way forward is therefore to have a system that is flexible and works with and engages the local community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raise an important, specific question about how our existing legislative framework recognises and accommodates areas with particular cultural and linguistic identities. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 are tightly drawn, as I hope noble Lords will agree. They apply only in circumstances wherein an authority has a specific responsibility under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In that sense, they are not broad or sweeping changes to the Government’s proposed legislation but targeted carve-outs intended to address a very particular cultural context.

There is undoubtedly broad agreement across the House on the importance of preserving and supporting minority languages and cultures. Across the United Kingdom, we see powerful examples of this. The Welsh language has, through sustained institutional support, seen significant revitalisation in recent decades, becoming a central part of public life in Wales. In Scotland, efforts to sustain and promote Scottish Gaelic continue to play an important role in cultural identity and education. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has noted, Cornwall’s recognition under the framework convention reflects a similar desire to protect and promote a distinct heritage, including the Cornish language.

We on these Benches recognise that language and culture are deeply tied to identity and sense of place. They all seek to promote community cohesion in a time when it seems that the public feel increasingly divided. As we debate devolution and the reorganisation of local governance, it is right that noble Lords remain mindful of how such changes interact with these long-standing commitments. At the same time, we recognise that these amendments raise wider questions about how such considerations should be reflected in the statutory framework and how far exceptions or differentiated arrangements could be drawn. We recognise that these are not straightforward issues, and they merit careful consideration.

This group of amendments has highlighted an important dimension of the debate on devolution. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to ensure that these important cultural protections are recognised and upheld in the Bill.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments on devolution in Cornwall and for meeting with my noble friend to discuss them in more detail. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long-standing advocacy for Cornwall, preserving its distinct identity and supporting its local economy. This is a cause that the Government support. From the announcement of a new £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund, which will invest in Cornwall’s sectoral strengths such as critical minerals and renewable energy, to the increased formal recognition of the Cornish language under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, agreed on 5 December 2025, this Government have demonstrated their commitment to Cornwall.

As we have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, we want Cornwall’s strengths and opportunities to be advanced through the opportunities that devolution brings, working in partnership with local leaders and others to agree a proposal that carries broad support across the area. We recognise the strong enthusiasm in Cornwall for devolution and the benefits it can provide. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Local Government wrote to the leader of Cornwall Council in November last year, setting out that

“the government is minded on an exceptional basis … to explore designating the council as a Single Foundation Strategic Authority”.

Those discussions are positive and ongoing. That is why accepting the noble Lord’s amendments at this stage, before those discussions are concluded, would be premature.

Finally, I must point out that neither the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities nor the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages—my accent probably falls into that category somewhere—both of which are referred to directly in these amendments, has been incorporated into domestic UK legislation. While the United Kingdom is a proud signatory to the charter and the framework convention, accepting these amendments risks creating uncertainty over the status and interpretation of those treaties in domestic law.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments. I would, however, be very happy to meet him again to explore the options for devolving further powers and funding to Cornwall, which remains a focus of this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendment on voting arrangements. Directly elected mayors have a unique democratic mandate. They are the only authority member directly elected by the whole of the authority area to provide leadership and direction. Requiring their agreement on key decisions reflects this mandate and ensures that someone with area-wide accountability is responsible for outcomes. It also ensures alignment and strategic coherence. Removing the requirement for mayoral agreement would weaken the leadership model that underpins effective devolution and could lead to less coherent strategies. Sole reliance on majority voting risks blurred accountability. If decisions are routinely taken without mayoral agreement, it becomes less clear who is ultimately responsible to the public. Mayors are directly accountable to all voters in their area, so it is right that decisions cannot be made if they disagree. This is not unilateral decision-making. The Government recognise the importance of strong collaboration within strategic authorities. That is why the standard voting arrangement in the Bill requires that a majority of voting members support a decision. The model in the Bill therefore combines collective decision-making with strong, accountable leadership. With that in mind, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. We have heard the argument that requiring the mayor’s agreement provides clarity and strong leadership. I do not dismiss that point. However, leadership in local government has long rested not in the hands of one individual alone but in the collective judgment of elected representatives working together on behalf of their communities. We have been clear that to give one individual the power to block decisions supported by the majority is to risk undermining accountability and effectiveness. It blurs responsibility, invites conflict and creates the potential for delay at precisely the moment when decisive action is required.

Combined authorities were established to foster collaboration across local areas, bring together different voices and make decisions that reflect the breadth of the communities they serve. That purpose is best served by a system in which decisions are made collectively and transparently, not one in which they can be halted by a single veto. This is ultimately a question of trust: trust in the collective wisdom of elected councillors and trust in the principle that democratic decisions should rest on majority support. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the Government to reflect on these concerns, but in the meantime, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 170 would require a mayor who holds fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue, creating governance arrangements that mirror those already in place for policing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, raises a number of interesting and important points, as we have heard from this short debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on the issue of democratic accountability, as raised by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and on my noble friend Lord Fuller’s point about making sure that public services all work from the same geographic area. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that; it might take a little longer, but I am sure it is worth doing.

During our consideration of the Bill, it has become clear that fire and rescue services are not listed as statutory consultees in the devolution framework. For me, that raises a number of important questions for the Government. As we have heard, fire and rescue services play a central role in public safety, resilience, planning and emergency responses, yet when decisions affecting land use, building standards, transport corridors or climate adaptions are taken without any requirement for fire service input, there is a risk of the safety and resilience considerations being added only after decisions have been made, rather than being embedded right from the outset.

In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why fire and rescue services are not statutory consultees, whether the Government consider this omission appropriate, and whether steps are being considered to strengthen their formal role in devolution and governance arrangements.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for moving Amendment 170, which would require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue.

Mayors are best placed to determine how to use the people and resources at their disposal to deliver for their communities. This amendment would prevent that by mandating the delegation of these functions specifically to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. It would also, therefore, prevent mayors delegating these functions to a public safety commissioner. The effective delegation of fire and rescue functions to a commissioner can ease capacity constraints, ensuring that there is a dedicated individual with the time and expertise to focus on executing those functions. Fire and rescue functions are already held by deputy mayors for policing and crime in Greater Manchester and York—and in North Yorkshire, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She seemed to say that she was not quite sure where it sat, so I will definitely write to her to explain how it works.

If they wish, mayors will be able to make an existing deputy mayor for policing and crime the public safety commissioner, meaning that that individual could lead on both policing and fire. However, certain functions should be the sole responsibility of the elected mayor as the head of the fire and rescue authority. Functions with the most significant bearing on the strategic direction of the fire service—such as the budget, the risk plan and the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer—are, therefore, retained by the mayor. On statutory requirements, fire and rescue services still have the right to respond to any planning application at the moment, for example, so they play a key role in that area. It is important that decisions in these areas are taken right at the top and that the person taking them is accountable at the ballot box.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, every effort is made to make coterminous the public service boundaries when we lay out these plans. The position we have taken provides strong accountability and operational flexibility for the mayors, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s point about whole-society resilience in the security review is quite right in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. There are resilience plans in all local authorities for such an incident, so these things are taken into consideration and reviewed constantly.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have two comments on the noble Lord’s response. First, the fire and rescue service is no longer a statutory consultee. Anybody can respond to a planning application, but that is slightly different from being a statutory consultee. Secondly, commissioners are not accountable at the ballot box. Therefore, why would we allow the role to go down to not deputy mayors—I do not think there are such things—but the commissioners responsible, when they are not accountable at the ballot box?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I am not sure whether there were any questions there.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

There is a duty to provide that kind of governance in the Bill. All I am trying to say is that there are various kinds of capacity in the 10,000 parish councils and they are not all the same. We cannot approach them in the same way. We know some of them have problems. I come from a shire county in the north-east of England so I know the capacity of parish councils and town councils to do certain jobs. We are well aware of that, and it is something that we obviously want to try and improve, and work with these parish and town councils into the future.

Amendment 252 concerns the powers available to local and combined authorities to promote local economic growth through banking and credit provision. Banking regulation is of systemic national interest. Its implementation must be consistent in applying technical standards, ensuring financial stability and protecting taxpayers. As such, it remains important that banking regulation continues to be considered at the national level as a reserved matter. Local and community banking is already possible within the existing framework, and the UK has a strong record of enabling new entrants to support access to finance. Mutuals, including building societies and credit unions, play a key role in supporting local economic growth. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the mutuals sector, with reforms already under way to help mutuals grow and raise capital. Further, through our financial inclusion strategy, the Government are improving access to affordable credit and strengthening community finance partnerships to support people and local economies. As such, the objectives of the proposed review are already addressed by existing initiatives, and I ask noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 93 in my name is about understanding whether devolution is delivering what it promises, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his support. The Bill places significant powers in the hands of devolved authorities, which is welcome, but with these powers must come clear and transparent assessment of their impact, not only on governance structures but on outcomes that matter to people’s daily lives.

The amendment seeks to expand the Secretary of State’s reporting requirements to cover four key areas, as I have said: housebuilding, economic growth, fiscal change and social care. These are central tests of success. Are housing targets being met? Are the right homes being delivered in the right places? Is devolution driving growth, et cetera? These are not unreasonable questions; they are essential if Parliament is to judge whether devolution is improving outcomes or delivering value for money and reducing inequalities between different places across our country.

This amendment would not prescribe policy but simply ask the Government to measure, report and be transparent about the consequences of their choice. I have listened to the Minister’s response, but he will not be surprised that I am disappointed. I do not think that using the existing reporting system will necessarily cover things and give us answers on whether these very major changes to local government are a success or whether they need some change. We need to look at this further before Report.

I have not done as much work as I should on parish and town councils, because I know that they will come up in future groupings. However, the one thing that came out of this debate for me, and from one or two of the Government’s responses on different groupings, is that town and parish councils are enshrined in legislation; they have rules. I cannot see anything further in this Bill that would put another type of very local responsible organisation in primary legislation. I would be very worried if there were. These neighbourhood arrangements are not going to be legislative arrangements; they will just be local groupings.

I have seen a lot of how this works in Wiltshire. When we went unitary, we were totally parished; we set up the city of Salisbury as a parish council. However, we also had area boards, which were within our council’s gift. They were where local councillors, police and fire representatives and local council officers got together to discuss local issues. Those boards had small budgets as well. They are very different things, however. I would also suggest that parish councils would work in cities and towns—they do work in some. They work very well in neighbourhoods and, in new developments where there are a large number of houses, they can work, but they want the support of government to work, and some small changes in government policy to make them work. I am not sure that having a parallel neighbourhood arrangement is the correct way to go.

The detail of that is for another debate before this Bill finishes Committee. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and, as I said, we will consider this further and possibly bring something back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her Amendment 95A, which is modest but important. It does not seek to block devolution or slow it down unnecessarily. Instead, it asks for two simple safeguards when new strategic authorities are created or altered: transparency and consent. The amendment seeks to strengthen rather than weaken the devolution framework in the Bill and attempt to ensure that strategic authorities are rooted in local identity, coherent service delivery and democratic agreement. For those reasons, I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her amendment and noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. This amendment concerns the powers in this Bill for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority and to designate single foundational strategic authorities and established mayoral strategic authorities.

The amendment would require the publication of a statement assessing the impact on community identity and public service boundaries when these powers are used, as well as requiring consent from the affected area. I am pleased to say that the Bill already contains safeguards to address these issues. For example, before conferring functions on a single foundational strategic authority or unitary authority, the Secretary of State must consider the effective exercise of functions for a local area. In addition, local consent is required prior to designation as a single foundational strategic authority.

The Secretary of State may designate an established mayoral strategic authority only if the authority submits a written proposal asking to be so designated. The authority’s consent is an inherent part of the process, as no authority can be designated unless it actively applies. Also, the criteria outlined in the English devolution White Paper are clear about the eligibility requirements for a mayoral strategic authority seeking to be designated as established. These criteria are designed to ensure the effective exercise of functions across a local area.

Finally, on the establishment or expansion of combined authorities, the Government have been clear that it is our strong preference and practice to work in partnership with local areas to develop proposals for devolution that carry the broad support of local leaders and the local area. The power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority would only ever be used as a last resort where a local area has not brought forward its own viable proposal. This will ensure that all areas across England are able to benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind.

On the establishment or expansion of combined authorities more generally, the Bill already includes the necessary safeguards, including a statutory test to ensure effective and convenient local government across the areas of competence. Furthermore, where the geographical expansion of a combined authority area could affect the exercise of its functions, the Secretary of State must consider this before making an order to expand the authority.

I hope that, with this response, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Before we move on, I note that the last group is quite a large one. We are due to finish in half an hour, so I would hate to think that we would have to break off half way through the group. I am in the noble Baroness’s hands—where would she like to go with it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It looks like a huge group, but that is only because of the scheduling. Most of the amendments are about the first part of the schedule, so I think we should get it done.

Schedule 1: Establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities and CCAs

Amendment 16

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we start the first group, I remind the House, as I did last week, of important guidance on Report, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly.

First, I note paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:

“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.


While debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, a number of earlier contributions strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny, while allowing us to make good progress in good time.

Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the Companion guidance in paragraph 8.82:

“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”


or pressing an amendment. Speeches appear to be getting longer, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we would be able to get on in a more timely manner.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify that 67 government amendments, I think, came in very late to the Bill? They have therefore not had a Committee stage. I hope he and the Minister will accept that some of those will need Committee, as well as Report, discussions.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

It is Report and all I would say is that, as long as the debate is relevant, we have no problem with that.

Amendment 84

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to ensure that small-scale renewable energy products are prioritised by the independent system operator and planner. As the noble Baroness knows, we on these Benches are very concerned about energy prices and want to see Ministers taking a pragmatic approach to delivering the energy infrastructure that we need.

I know that there is a particular interest in renewables, but we need to take a whole-system approach, tackling policy costs as well as the marginal costs of electricity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the current support for renewables at a smaller scale, and it would be helpful for the House to know what plans the Government have on smaller renewables.

Although we feel that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is too prescriptive, it raises an important question about planning our energy supply for the future. Clearly, local needs should be taken into account. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Amendment 24 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, though well intentioned, is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome of greater support with the grid connection process for smaller renewable energy projects. The amendment seeks to require the independent system operator and planner to prioritise support for smaller renewable energy projects when they apply for a grid connection. I recognise the noble Baroness’s helpful attempt to support smaller renewable energy projects. The Government appreciate the important role that smaller renewable energy projects, such as rooftop solar and community energy, can play in meeting our clean power mission, reducing energy costs and engaging communities in renewable energy.

Along with the independent energy regulator, Ofgem, the Government also recognise that more needs to be done to support smaller electricity network connection customers, including renewable energy projects, but this is achievable within the regulatory framework without the need for primary legislation. Indeed, Ofgem has already proposed stronger incentives and obligations on network companies to provide better connection customer service. Following a consultation earlier this year, it expects to publish further details and next steps in the coming weeks.

The amendment’s wording would also not meet the desired outcome. Section 16 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires electricity distribution network operators to connect customers. The amendment would place an obligation on the independent system operator and planner only in terms of the way in which the duties under Section 16 are complied with. However, the independent system operator and planner has no duties under Section 16. Given the legislative unworkability of the amendment, and given work already under way to support smaller renewable energy connection customers, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw it.

Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to require the Government to commence a programme of research and analysis on the imposition of a statutory duty on local authorities to produce local area energy plans, and publish a report on their findings; and to require the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a formal policy decision on a statutory duty within two years. We recognise that the amendment moves the debate on from Committee so that an immediate burden is not placed on local authorities to produce a local area energy plan, and nor are the Government required to immediately produce national guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans. The amendment places this work in the context of planning for electricity infrastructure, but the approach set out in the amendment risks constraining and duplicating work already under way, and it may constrain the way the Government continue to work in partnership with local government.

The overall approach to this work is being undertaken jointly with local government through the ministerial Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which meets quarterly. This is co-chaired with the Local Government Association. The group has discussed the development of a framework for local government to provide more clarity on the roles and responsibilities for net zero and energy. This group will need to reflect on the role of local government on energy planning and net zero in the context of the warm homes plan and Great British Energy’s local power plan, both due shortly.

The kind of research envisaged by the amendment is already under way. This has been commissioned by DESNZ from local government officials working in local net zero hubs. This includes preparing guidance for local authorities on what they need to do on energy planning to prepare for the regional energy strategic plans that Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—are producing. Ofgem and NESO are looking to consult on the approach and methodology later this year. They are also developing guidance and tools for local government to help it specify and procure high-quality data to support energy planning, with outputs due by January 2026.

In conclusion, we do not believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out in such detail a programme of work to review local energy planning. We are sympathetic to the points raised and agree with the point made in Committee about the importance of including local understanding in delivering the bigger picture on energy planning. I hope I have been able to give some assurances that the Government agree that local involvement in energy planning is important and that the kind of work the amendment envisages is already under way.

I must stress the need to review local area energy planning in the context of ongoing work and other policies and strategies as and when they are published, rather than to the timetable and in the way set out in the amendment. Preferably, this should be in partnership with local government, reflecting needs and approaches. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is satisfied with our response and will consider withdrawing her amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing forward Amendment 21. Ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is vital and must not be overlooked. However, we are clear, and indeed passionate in our conviction, that the implementation of environmental delivery plans in their current form is deeply problematic. As drafted, the policy risks riding roughshod over our current environmental regime. We must also not forget the interests of farmers and land managers, who are, after all, the principal stewards of our natural environment. My noble friend Lord Roborough will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from Committee in the coming days. My noble friend Lady Coffey is right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plan will interact with a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Government must be clear on how this will work in practice and what they intend to consider when reviewing the impact of these projects.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan, or EDP, is taken into account by the Secretary of State when making a decision whether to grant permission to a nationally significant infrastructure project.

I can assure noble Lords that the way in which EDPs will work in practice means that this amendment is not necessary. Meeting the relevant environmental obligations with an EDP, just as when satisfying them under the current system, is a separate part of the process to the granting of permission. When a promoter commits to pay the levy in relation to an EDP, the making of that commitment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.

I emphasise again that it will, aside from in exceptional circumstances, be a voluntary decision for the promoter of a nationally significant infrastructure project to decide whether they pay the levy to rely on the EDP. This means that while the Secretary of State will need to consider a wide variety of matters, for the purposes of these decisions, the EDP will not be a consideration other than as a way of reflecting that the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature will have been addressed. It does not need to be considered beyond that in the decision to grant permission. This notwithstanding, the Secretary of State may already have regard to any matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision.

I therefore hope, with this explanation, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for raising this important issue of village and specific land protection.

We fully appreciate the intention behind seeking to make better use of underused land by the Government, but concerns remain about the potential impact of such changes on the wider countryside and, crucially, on the identity of our villages. Although this matter may not directly be in scope of the Bill, it clearly interacts with it, and I hope Ministers will continue to reflect very carefully on the balance between flexibility in planning and long-standing protections afforded to rural communities.

In particular, I draw attention to Amendment 215, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. This is an important amendment, which states:

“Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate”


to those afforded to towns. I will not go into an explanation, because that has been given clearly and concisely by my noble friend Lord Lansley. However, it is important specifically in relation to preventing villages merging into one another, and in preserving the setting and special characteristic of many of our historic villages, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

We must ensure that village identity is properly protected. Rural communities are not simply pockets of houses; they are places with history, distinctiveness and a character that contributes immeasurably to our national heritage, and to the lives of the people who live there. This is a firmly held view on these Benches. I shall not detain your Lordships’ House by rehearsing our manifesto, but we will continue to stand up for the green belt and for all our villages.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to an interesting debate. As someone who lives in a small village in the north-east of England, I found it really interesting. I am obviously concerned for personal reasons about saving the green belt and looking after historic buildings. When I look out of the window, I can see a grade 1 listed church, so I know the importance of looking after these buildings.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Hodgson, for their amendments, which arise, I suspect, as much from our revision of green-belt policy in the National Planning Policy Framework as from the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that we published the updated framework last December. The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least by checking the unrestricted sprawl of large, built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another.

Amendment 157 would require local authorities to identify land that contributes towards the green-belt purposes, and, once this land is designated as green belt, prevent any development of such land for a minimum of 20 years.

Planning policy is already clear on the ability of local authorities to establish green belts, and provides strong protections against development on green-belt land. As I have mentioned, our revised National Planning Policy Framework maintains these strong protections and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. The framework also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.

However, we know that brownfield land alone will never be enough to meet needs. This is why the revised framework continues to recognise the limited circumstances in which the use of some green-belt land for development may be justified and allow for the alteration of green-belt boundaries in exceptional circumstances.

A new requirement to prevent any development on designated green belt or alterations to green-belt boundaries for 20 years would limit authorities’ ability to respond to changing circumstances. It would override the discretion of the local community to discuss and consider whether existing green-belt land is still serving the purposes of green belt, and how and where to allow new homes or other essential development in sustainable locations.

Amendment 215 would require the issuing or updating of guidance for local planning authorities to restrict the development of villages. I make clear that neither our green-belt reforms nor the green-belt guidance make any change to the long-standing green-belt purposes, which include preventing the merging of towns and safeguarding the setting and special character of historic towns. Our guidance is clear that, when identifying grey belt, it is the contribution land makes to the relevant purposes that should be considered.

This reflects the fact that the fundamental aim of green-belt policy is, rightly, preventing urban sprawl, with an explicit focus on larger built-up areas and towns. The guidance does not remove appropriate and relevant green-belt protections from land around villages. It makes clear that any green-belt land, including land in or near villages, which contributes strongly to the relevant purposes should not be identified as grey belt.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Will the planning policy be changed to include villages? At the moment the protection is for urban areas, not rural areas. If the Government continue to look at changing green belt to grey belt, surely there should be further protection for villages to stop them being coalesced together.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I hope to address that in a little bit—the noble Baroness may think that I will not, but that is the intention.

Local authorities continue to have various other ways to manage development in villages, and neither the Bill nor our policy reforms exclude the consideration of matters such as the character of a village or the scale and style of development, where relevant, in planning determinations. For instance, a local plan may designate local green space safe from inappropriate development or recognise a Defra-registered village green. Historic village character can also be preserved by using conservation area policies, neighbourhood planning, local listing of important buildings or local design guidance.

As planning policy already sets out adequate and appropriate protection from and support for development relating to villages, both inside and outside the green belt, I do not believe this amendment seeking to use green-belt protections to restrict development in villages is appropriate. Neither of these amendments is necessary to protect the green belt or the character of villages, and their statutory nature would limit the ability of local planning authorities to develop sound strategies and make the decisions necessary to ensure new homes and jobs in the right places. I therefore ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, heritage assets, as we have heard, are not simply buildings or sites of historic interest; they are living reminders of who we are, where we come from and the values we wish to pass on. Turning to the amendments before us, in Amendment 172 the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, raises an important and interesting issue—the inconsistency, as I understand it, between heritage policy and heritage legislation. I am keen to hear the Government’s reflections on this matter and whether they believe that an amendment of this kind is necessary to ensure clarity and consistency in the system. I will wait to hear what the Minister says, and I would love a conversation about this with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews.

Turning to a series of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, as he so often does, he has raised some significant, thought-provoking issues. We worked tirelessly on the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act. Anything that helps to get on with the commencement of some of the key aspects of that legislation would be most welcome. In that context, Amendment 182, on the commencement of provisions concerning the duty to have regard to heritage assets in planning functions, is of particular importance. Ensuring that heritage is properly taken into account in planning decisions is a safeguard for the future as much as a means of showing respect for the past.

We also hear what my noble friend says in Amendment 185C, which proposes that national listed building consent orders under Section 26C of the 1990 Act be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That seems a practical suggestion, and I hope the Government and the noble Baroness will consider it carefully. Heritage is, after all, not about blocking change but about managing it well and ensuring that the past informs and enriches the future. These amendments, in different ways, all seek that balance model.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their amendments. Amendment 172 would align the terminology of the listed buildings Act with that of the National Planning Policy Framework. It also seeks to encourage desirable change which will benefit our heritage assets. While I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment, the use of the word “preserve” in heritage legislation is long standing and supported by case law. Case law, in particular, has emphasised that if a decision-maker follows the policies protecting designated heritage assets in the NPPF, including giving greater weight to their conservation, it will have discharged its duty to have special regard to the preservation of a listed building. I am wary, therefore, of changing the wording to “conserve”, as doing so might create more uncertainty and lead to further legal challenge when the position is settled in case law.

As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which are the subject of Amendment 182 from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, seek to introduce the term “enhancing” into heritage legislation. My noble friend Lady Taylor has met with the heritage organisations and the DCMS once in the past, and we are committed to meeting them again before Report.

I now turn to Amendments 182 and 183, which both seek to commence provisions in the 2023 Act. I reassure the Committee that the Government have not forgotten about these provisions. We are continuing to consider our approach to heritage planning policy in the context of the wider planning reforms, including further revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework. We will keep implementation of the 2023 Act heritage measures under review as part of that work.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 185C, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, which would make national listed building consent orders subject to the negative procedure. My noble friend Lady Andrews, especially, but perhaps also other long-serving Members, will recall that it was the intention of Parliament that national listed building consent orders be subject to the affirmative procedure. This was largely in response to concerns raised about the power and breadth of discretion given to the Secretary of State.

The noble Baroness commented during the debates on the 2013 Act:

“There is concern that a general national class consent order, saying something about the works that could be done to listed buildings without consent, could not conceivably be so sensitive that it did not have some perverse or damaging consequences”.—[Official Report, 14/11/12; col. 1545.]


Therefore, we need to be very cautious about changing the procedure to the negative procedure without significant engagement with the heritage sector and others. With these explanations, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their careful thought and experience in tabling these amendments. On Amendment 135D, I recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in seeking to restrict appeals to the Court of Appeal where the High Court has deemed an application to be totally without merit. This is, of course, a delicate balance between ensuring access to justice and preventing the courts from being encumbered by hopeless claims. I am grateful to him for placing this important matter before your Lordships’ Committee.

Similarly, the noble Lord’s Amendments 357, 358 and 360 raise pertinent questions about the commencement provisions of various clauses, particularly in relation to the new measures on planning and legal challenges. It is often the case that commencement by regulation can leave uncertainty. The proposal to provide for an automatic commencement two months after Royal Assent is, at the very least, a reminder of the need for clarity and timeliness in the law. These points merit careful reflection, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I now turn to Amendment 168, tabled by my noble friend Lord Banner. This amendment addresses a very practical difficulty—namely, the risk that development consents are lost due to time running out during the course of judicial or statutory reviews. By stopping the clock, the amendment would ensure that the permission does not simply expire while litigation is pending. This is important not only for developers and investors who require certainty but for local communities who deserve clarity about the projects affecting them. Without such a measure, there is a danger that meritless legal challenges might be deployed as a tactic to run down the clock, thereby frustrating legitimate development. I believe my noble friend is right to highlight this problem, and I warmly welcome his amendment.

I conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Banner for their thoughtful contributions. We on these Benches will listen very closely to the Minister’s response on these matters.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group. I turn first to Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, which seeks to reduce the time limit for bringing a legal challenge against planning decisions from six weeks to 21 days.

Judicial and statutory review of planning decisions are already subject to a compressed six-week window within which a claim may be brought, compared with the three-month time limit in most judicial reviews. It is the Government’s view that the current time limit strikes the right balance between providing certainty for developers in local communities and preserving access to justice. Further shortened, the time limit for bringing a claim would risk restricting the public’s ability to hold the Government and planning authorities to account on planning decisions.

A shorter time limit would also leave less time for meaningful engagement between the parties to potentially resolve matters out of court or to narrow the scope of any claim. Claimants who fear being timed out may also feel compelled to lodge protective claims just in case. This could inadvertently lead to greater delays due to a potential increase in the number of challenges.

The Government are taking forward a wider package of reforms to improve the efficiency of the planning system, including measures to speed up decisions and encourage early engagement. These changes will have a far greater impact than trimming a few weeks off the judicial review timetable. While I recognise my noble friend’s intention to reduce uncertainty in the planning system, I believe the three-week time saving from the shortened time limit is outweighed by the risk of restricting access to justice and the practical implications of such a change. Therefore, I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

I turn next to Amendments 129, 130 and 135D, also tabled by my noble friend, which seek to remove the right of appeal for certain planning judicial reviews if they are deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing in the High Court. The effect of these amendments largely reflects that of Clause 12, which makes provisions specifically for legal challenges concerning nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008.

The measures in Clause 12 follow a robust independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, and a subsequent government call for evidence that made clear the case for change regarding these major infrastructure projects. We currently do not have any evidence of an issue with legal challenges concerning other types of planning decision. We will therefore need to consider this matter further to determine whether the extension of the changes made to Clause 12 will be necessary or desirable in other planning regimes.

With regards to the amendment, which seeks to clarify that legal challenges are to be made to the High Court, this is not necessary, as the process is set out clearly in the relevant rules, practice directions and guidance documents. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for his Amendments 357, 358 and 360 concerning the commencement of Clause 12 and the new judicial review provisions which he is proposing. The amendments seek to ensure that these provisions all come into force two months after Royal Assent. With regard to Clause 12, this requires changes to the relevant civil procedures, rules and practice directions. The current power, which allows this measure to be commenced by regulation, is designed to ensure that the necessary provisions are in place before the changes come into force. I reassure my noble friend that the Government intend to commence the measure by regulation as soon as practicable following Royal Assent. With regards to my noble friend’s amendment linked to his proposed new provisions, I think he would agree that this amendment is no longer required as the related provisions are now being withdrawn. For these reasons, I kindly ask that my noble friend withdraws his amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for Amendment 168, which would extend the time period to commence a planning permission if the permission was subject to judicial proceedings. The Government agree with the policy intention behind this amendment. The statutory commencement provisions under Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are an important and long-standing part of the legal framework for planning permissions to ensure that permissions are implemented in a timely manner, and lapsed if they have not begun within the prescribed time period.

However, we recognise that it would be unfair on the applicant if judicial proceedings—where the court has confirmed the lawfulness of the permission—led to delays that mean that the commencement period of the lawful permission is effectively curtailed. Legal challenges on the validity of the permission should not seek to time out the practical implementation of the permission. That is why Section 91(3A) to (3B) was introduced to automatically extend the commencement period for a formal planning permission by a further year if there were judicial proceedings questioning the validity of a planning permission. This extension of a year is sufficient to cover the typical period for a planning case at the High Court, so applicants, where their planning permission has been lawfully upheld, should not lose out from the delay caused by the legal challenge. In light of these points, I kindly ask that my noble friend does not press his amendments.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Scott of Bybrook and Lord Wilson of Sedgefield

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to the substance of the amendments in this group, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Khan. Although he sat on the Opposition Benches, he always approached his shadow ministerial duties in your Lordships’ House with courtesy, commitment and friendship. He was diligent, engaged and unfailingly respectful in his dealings with me and my team. While we did not always agree, I greatly valued the constructive spirit he brought to our debates, and I wish him well in whatever lies ahead; I will miss working with him.

I thank my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger for tabling these probing amendments, which raise important issues about the way we prepare our housing stock for the future. Amendment 115, on rainwater harvesting, Amendment 116, on communal ground source heat pumps, and Amendment 117, on solar panels, speak to the wider challenge of how new homes can be made more resilient in the face of climate change. The principle of future-proofing is one most of us would support, but the question for government is how far and at what cost such measures should be mandated, and the practicality of doing so. Can the Minister clarify whether, in the Government’s view, current building regulations, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, already provide the right framework to encourage technologies such as rainwater capture, ground source heat pumps and solar panels, or is further regulation envisaged? Has the department carried out an assessment of the costs and benefits of making such systems compulsory, including the potential impact on house prices and affordability, and how these costs might be lowered in the future? Has it also considered the capacity of local electrical grids to support these systems and other potential loads such as EV charging?

There is also a question of consistency. To what extent are local authorities currently able to set higher environmental standards for new developments, and do the Government believe this local flexibility is the right approach, or should it be centralised?

Finally, how are the Government weighing the balance between affordability for first-time buyers on the one hand and, on the other, the need to reduce the long-term costs to households and infrastructure of failing to invest in resilience? These are the issues I hope the Minister will address, because it is that balance between ambition, practicality and cost which must guide policy in this area.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for moving her amendment. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said about my noble friend Lord Khan, who is actually a friend and was a very good Minister. We really appreciate the effort he put into his role in this House, and I wish him well for the future.

We have had a very good debate this afternoon on these issues. I too declare my interest in water butts, since I have two in the garden which we use for watering it. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that they fill rather quickly, so it is a good, efficient use of water, rather than using the hosepipe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this has gone a different way, has it not?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 120. Not knowing which way it would go, and not totally agreeing with my noble friend at the back, I think this raises an important point of principle that deserves to be considered.

At first glance, this is a very specific proposal, but the noble Baroness is right to highlight the broader issue that lies behind it, without the political point-scoring. It is the need for transparency, integrity and public trust in the planning system. We all recognise that planning decisions, as we have heard, are among the most contentious and sensitive areas of government, nationally and locally. Undue influence or even the perception of it can do damage to public trust in local communities and in Ministers and government. The noble Baroness is therefore right to remind us that we must be vigilant about conflicts of interest and that transparency is the best safeguard against suspicion.

The principle that the noble Baroness presses is a sound one, but there is a question of whether it is practically deliverable. Do our local planning authorities —which are, as we hear every day, underresourced—have the skills and capacity to deliver on this requirement? I am not sure that they do. Perhaps we should consider whether MHCLG should take on this responsibility, as it has greater access to the information that would be required. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on this one.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for another interesting debate on an issue around which we need to continue to be vigilant. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 120, which seeks to introduce a requirement on local planning authorities to keep a registry of planning applications made by political donors which are decided by Ministers.

The honourable Member for Taunton and Wellington brought this clause forward in the other place, and in doing so, he referred to a particular planning case that had raised cause for concern. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss that case, but I would like to echo the sentiments of the Housing Minister when I say that I also share those concerns.

However, we believe that this clause is unnecessary. Local planning register authorities are already required to maintain and publish a register of every application for planning permission and planning application decisions that relate to their area. This includes details and application decisions where the Secretary of State, or other Planning Ministers who act on his behalf, has made the decision via a called-in application or a recovered appeal. This is set out in Article 40 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

In addition, the Secretary of State’s decisions on planning cases are also published on GOV.UK in order to provide additional transparency. The details on GOV.UK include the decision letters that set out the reasons for the decision. When determining applications for planning permission, the Secretary of State and other Planning Ministers who act on his behalf operate within the Ministerial Code and planning propriety guidance. Planning propriety guidance makes it clear that decisions on planning proposals should be made with an open mind, based on the facts at the time. Any conflicts of interest between the decision-making role of Ministers and their other interests should be avoided.

Planning Ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the Ministerial Code. The Ministerial Code makes specific provision for the declaration of gifts given to Ministers in their ministerial capacity. Gifts given to Ministers in their capacity as constituency MPs or members of a political party fall within the rules relating to the registers of Members’ and Lords’ financial interests.

Also, before any Planning Minister takes decisions, the planning propriety guidance sets out that they are required to declare anything that could give rise to a conflict of interest or where there could be a perceived conflict of interest. The planning casework unit within the department uses this information to ensure that Planning Ministers do not deal with decisions that could give rise to the perception of impropriety—for example, if the Minister in question has declared that the applicant of the proposal is a political donor, they would be recused from making the decision.

We therefore feel that there is sufficient transparency on planning casework decisions made by the Secretary of State and Planning Ministers who act on his behalf, and it is not necessary to impose an additional administrative burden on local planning authorities, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said, we need to continue to be vigilant. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Going back to a previous group we had late last week, does the noble Lord think it could be useful that all Ministers taking planning decisions had a little bit more training, as we suggested?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

On this particular issue, they do take training, and it is deemed at the moment to be necessary, but obviously all this stuff is kept under review.