English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I will stand, as I am not speaking for long, and will sit if I need to, but I thank the noble Lord very much for his consideration.

For us on these Benches, devolution involves enabling governance at the lowest possible level to make the appropriate decisions. These two amendments in their different ways seek to explore whether that is in the Government’s thinking and whether they would accept the suggestions that these amendments make.

The purpose of Amendment 126 is to provide clarity concerning the powers of the mayor and the combined county authority. Clause 35 consists of just two lines and is a very brief statement of the powers of land acquisition and planning development. Further details are provided in Schedule 16. Clause 35 confers on the mayor and the CCA the power to acquire land and develop it. Presumably, though it is not entirely clear—and maybe this is where the Minister will be able help the Committee—this would be by providing an outline allocation of the site for housing development under the strategic planning powers in the Bill.

This may result in a major housing development being agreed in principle without the consent of the constituent local planning authority or, indeed, of the local council concerned. The consequences are then very significant if the development fails to include, for example, a condition for the provision of necessary additional facilities, such as school places, GP surgeries and transport and highway infrastructure. It may also mean that a significant housing development—as a general rule, given that it is coming through a strategic planning process, it will be a major site of 200-plus houses —is given permission in principle without consultation and the engagement of the local community affected by it. Imposing new developments on communities in this way will only build resentment and further discredit the notion of local democracy. Amendment 126 would provide safeguards to ensure that such engagement and consultation take place.

There is a provision within Amendment 126 for a veto, but it is a qualified veto. It is included but is constrained by regulation, which would ensure that a housing development is not simply rejected by those who do not want any development but rejected on acceptable planning grounds provided by the constituent authority.

The Minister may say that we have to build houses, and with that I agree. But we have to build them with the consent of the communities in which they are placed. In my own area, I have experience of where a mayor has the powers to impose without consultation and engagement. The local community is furious. It has done no good at all to either the mayor or the infrastructure that is being planned, because the mayor has not taken the community with them, which is what the amendment is about. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.

Amendment 127 is less of a challenge for anybody. It just refers to land acquisition powers. In Schedule 16 there is a list of authorities to be consulted when a mayor wants to acquire land, but the list fails to include parish and town councils. Parish and town councils are statutory consultees for planning applications, so they also ought to be statutory consultees for land acquisition by a mayor. In addition, given the nature of the Bill and the guidance that has been given about increasing neighbourhood governance in some form, making the case for parish and town councils is the right way to go, because I can see them becoming increasingly important as large unitary councils become the norm.

The new unitaries are expected to have a population of around 500,000 people, so wards are likely to be large. Each councillor will represent maybe 5,000 voters, which is the norm where I am. That is easily the largest ratio of elected representatives to voters of any western European nation. It therefore seems that more parish and town councils will be created, and that they will be an increasingly important part of our democratic representation. Given that, it is equally important that those councils can be formally consulted on sensitive issues in local areas, such as land acquisitions. The depth of our devolution is what I am exploring today. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 131. There is an interesting pot-pourri of subjects in this group. Amendment 131 would require the appointment of a statutory chief planner for local planning authorities and strategic authorities. Noble Lords who participated in the debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will recall that we had positive debates on this subject during the passage of that legislation, and I do not apologise for returning to it.

The need for a statutory chief planner role is, if anything, increasing. The argument is very straightforward. We are increasingly, and I think the Government are deliberately, seeking to raise the status of the planning profession, increase the strategic responsibilities of planners and ensure that, through the planning reforms, we accelerate housing delivery and growth. The planning profession is instrumental to making this happen. Although on previous occasions the Government’s response was that this was something that local authorities can choose to do, and therefore we should not require them to do it by appointing a statutory officer, all the messages that are coming back to us from across the profession demonstrate that this would enable the planning profession to step up fully to the role that is envisaged for it through the legislation that we passed last year and this year.

Some of the examples will be known to noble Lords. The national scheme of delegation—I am looking forward to soon seeing the first statutory instrument implementing it—will enhance the role specifically of the chief planner, who will work with the chair of a planning committee in a local planning authority. Indeed, noble Lords will recall that the Government’s consultation document referred explicitly to the role of the chief planner, without there necessarily being a chief planner in all these planning authorities.

We are also adding to the number of chief planners needed overall, by reference to the strategic authorities and the increasing role of development corporations, each of which will have planning powers. Amendment 131 includes not only local planning authorities but strategic authorities. Why? Because spatial development strategies —which, if I remember correctly, are to be implemented under the Town and Country Planning Act but are a result of the Planning and Infrastructure Act—are a very significant strategic planning function in strategic authorities. There is a significant risk that, without a chief planner role, the spatial development strategy will be seen as an adjunct to a local growth plan and an economic development initiative, whereas, for it to be successful, it must be implemented by officers who understand and can use the National Planning Policy Framework and government guidance and mesh them together with the views of their elected members and the combined authority.

This was previously the subject of debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Royal Town Planning Institute, whose support for the amendment I am grateful for—I am also grateful for the other signatures on Amendment 131—has added to that support by reference to a number of quotes. I will not keep the Committee for a long time but I want to read some out, if I may.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think it would be best if we look at the legal judgment and come back to the noble Baroness on that issue. I undertake to do that.

Amendment 196E was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is in the Chamber. It relates to the definition of planning data as set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. I recognise the intention to expand the data standards provision to ensure that it covers other types of plans produced by strategic authorities, such as local growth plans and local transport plans. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 grants the Secretary of State the power to specify in regulations which planning information must meet set data standards. Given that data standards can evolve, the Secretary of State has the power to define those standards. The types of plans referred to in this amendment are intended to be considered as part of plan-making and in determining planning applications, both of which are relevant planning functions under the existing planning data provisions. Further, the Secretary of State has the power to specify the organisations and planning legislation that the data standards provisions apply to, providing flexibility to data provision powers as needed. We are confident that the current provisions are sufficiently broad and flexible to cover the plans specified in this amendment, but I welcome further details on the amendment’s intentions and objectives.

Amendment 222B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to add fire and rescue authorities as statutory consultees for planning applications involving energy projects, such as battery energy storage systems. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I refer to them as BESS in future—I have a granddaughter called Bess, so that feels a bit weird to me, but never mind about it. Let me emphasise that the Government take fire and safety extremely seriously, but we do not consider this amendment to be necessary or proportionate, and we are concerned that it may create unintended consequences. On 26 January last year, the Chancellor announced a moratorium on the creation of any new statutory consultees within the planning process together with a wider review of the statutory consultee framework to ensure that it supports the Government’s ambitions for growth. A Written Ministerial Statement issued on 10 March 2025 set out a package of measures to reform statutory consultees, ensuring that they provide high-quality expert advice swiftly to support well-designed development and timely decision-making. The Government have now consulted on statutory consultee reform, and we are currently analysing the responses. No decisions will be taken until that analysis is complete. Adding fire and rescue services to the list of statutory consultees would pre-empt that review and place additional burdens on them.

I know that battery energy storage system sites are of particular interest. These sites are already regulated by the Health and Safety Executive under a robust framework that requires designers, installers and operators to maintain high safety standards. Planning practice guidance also encourages developers promoting these developments on a larger scale to engage with local fire and rescue services, and local planning authorities are encouraged to consider guidance issued by the National Fire Chiefs Council. I repeat what I said in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill discussions: because someone is not a statutory consultee does not mean that they cannot contribute to a planning application discussion if they feel they need to. The Government are also considering further measures to strengthen oversight of environmental and safety risks associated with BESS. Proposals were recently included in Defra’s consultation on modernising environmental permitting for industry which proposed adding BESS sites to the environmental permitting regulations. Defra is currently considering the responses to that consultation and will publish its response in due course.

I turn to Amendment 241E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, which seeks to change the role of national park authorities in the preparation of a spatial development strategy where it covers a national park or is likely to have a significant effect on the purposes of a national park. Although I agree absolutely with the need to ensure that national parks remain protected—we had much discussion on that during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—the existing arrangements already provide national park authorities with opportunities to have input into the preparation of a spatial development strategy and, more generally, to shape development.

Under Section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, strategic planning authorities must consult

“any local planning authority for an area that is wholly or partly within, or adjoins, the strategy area and is affected by the strategy”.

This includes national park authorities. More generally, we will expect strategic planning authorities to engage closely with national park authorities where relevant, and we intend to provide guidance to support early and effective engagement. Finally, as local planning authorities, national park authorities will continue to prepare local plans for their areas, which will set out more detailed policies on the use and development of land in the national park.

With the assurances that I have given this afternoon, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Bennett, Lady McIntosh and Lady Freeman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Forgive me, but I wish to speak before the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, responds to the debate. Her Amendment 127 raises an interesting question on Schedule 16. When mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities are compulsorily acquiring land, they do not require the consent of constituent councils at all, whereas non-mayoral combined authorities and single foundation strategic authorities do require the consent of constituent councils. Can the Minister explain why one route requires consent and the other does not?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I am out of time, may I respond to the noble Lord in writing? I am happy to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendments would bring into play thousands of publicly owned sites, large and small, on terms that make possible the good land uses that local communities need and deserve. When I raised this same issue in debates on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the noble Baroness who is now the Minister, who was then on the Opposition Benches, expressed support for my amendment. I hope she still feels that way. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to say a word in support of Amendment 133 from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about creating a statutory provision to enable financial assistance to be given to the establishment of a mayoral development corporation—and also, perhaps, just to note that my former constituency lies within the area where the Government have announced today a consultation on the establishment of a centrally led development corporation for the whole area of the city council and South Cambridgeshire.

Noble Lords on all sides might like to stop and examine this substantial issue. All decisions relating to sites of strategic importance in two council areas will, according to the proposal, from 2029 at least be decided by a development corporation and not the councils themselves. That is quite a substantial change. I am not saying that I am for or against it; we were always expecting it and had been expecting it for quite a long time. It is relevant to this debate because the reason why, in greater Cambridge, people not only expected this to happen but, by and large, supported it—I remind noble Lords of my registered interest in the Cambridgeshire development corporation—is that it comes, as announced, with £400 million in investment and infrastructure, and development corporations need to be driven by an infrastructure-first approach.

That is relevant to this debate because, if this were a mayoral development corporation—we have a mayor, so it is not inconsiderable that it could have been—it does not follow that anything like those resources would have been available to a mayoral development corporation in the way that they are for the centrally led development corporation. That is not to say that mayoral development corporations cannot get financial assistance from the Government. For example, in London the Old Oak development corporation has had money from the Government through the Homes England housing investment fund and some capital grants for land acquisition. But I do not think that is quite what the noble Lord, Lord Best, is looking for.

We are looking for two things: first, the ability for the Government to provide resources for the establishment of a mayoral development corporation, rather than for financial support for some of its activities. Secondly, we may be looking at mayoral development corporations, particularly in some of the new towns, where the funding requirement is at scale and is particular to that development corporation and not simply a subset of the grant-making powers that are available to the relevant government department for other purposes.

I remember the days when I was a financial officer for a government department. Having the statutory power is necessary if you are going to have substantial resources devoted to something over a significant period of time. It is not good enough simply to regard it as an extension of other powers that were devised not for that purpose. Giving specific statutory powers to fund the establishment of mayoral development corporations and to enable long-term funding from the Government potentially seems to be an essential part of the new towns programme. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I was involved in the London Olympics for 19 years, from day one. Our first meeting was at the Bromley by Bow Centre, with three of us, in 1999. These projects take a long time, and it was only after that first meeting that I dared to go and see the architect Richard Rogers at his house. When he heard our vision and thought about it, he decided to be part of the team as well, and one thing led to another.

It was a very long journey, and it did not begin as a development corporation. The ideas for what eventually became the legacy company grew up among a small group of leaders, including Sir Robin Wales, the Labour leader of Newham at that time, who focused, over many years, on the place, the history of the place and a vision for the future. It was a long journey.

When, eventually, we won the bid, lessons were learned and it did not begin as a development corporation. It became known as the Olympic Park Legacy Company, which was a social business—for those of us who remember it in detail—which wanted to make sure we had the right people around the table who could begin to drive the legacy programme and not do what had happened in so many Olympic projects around the world, many of which I went to see, which had no legacy and ended in wastelands.

As we gained competence, what began to happen is that politicians and the system began to realise that we needed to be given planning powers. It was only after a number of years, as we grew as a company in skills and had a clear vision, that we became the London Legacy Development Corporation. The wise thing at that time was that the directors were not changed and moved on, and we did not have the usual churn that goes on; we were encouraged to stay as a group of people to follow through on this development.

What are the lessons learned over that very long period of time around this development corporation process? Our first lesson was to have a clear vision that is deeply rooted in the history of the place and the people who live in the place. That is absolutely critical.

Secondly, bring together the right people with the right skills and ensure that you have the right business skills on the board. It is not about having boards—if I am honest—that are just council representatives; it is about the right individuals from the public sector, the business sector and the social sector who come together.

Thirdly, good leadership with the right business skills is absolutely essential.

Fourthly, a development corporation has to take the long view. It will pass through different Governments and different local councils. It is really important that continuity is seen as an essential element of any development corporation.

Fifthly, create a learning-by-doing culture focused on quality, not a tick-box culture.

Sixthly, create integrated environments wherever you operate, bring people together and resist silos.

Seventhly, focus on people and relationships, not just process.

Eighthly, government needs to get interested in the detail. This is my thought at the moment. There are real lessons out there, but development corporations across the country are not all good and all the same thing. Get interested in the detail and what works.

Finally, if you look out there at what is going on, you will find that some development corporations are far better than others, some have had some successes and some have failed to learn the lessons.

This amendment is important, and I certainly want to support it, but the detail on this and the practice really matter.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 41 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson is a probing amendment concerning why the Government wish to give mayors a veto over the decisions of a combined county authority.

If this Bill is truly about empowering local communities, decision-making power should be allocated equally between all elected councillors, not concentrated in the hands of one political party individual. This is not to say that the mayor should not have a vote, or perhaps even a casting vote, but we currently see no justification for giving mayors a veto over all decisions made by a majority of a community’s democratically elected representatives. This would not empower local government but would instead turn it into a kind of presidential system. That is not how we do things in this country, nor do we want to.

Amendments 42 and 44 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley seek to bring the Bill in line with past legislation. Amendment 42 is in relation to the voting powers of members of combined county authorities whereby the Secretary of State can make provision for different weights to be given to votes of different types of members, as set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Amendment 44, on transport, seeks to bring the Bill in line with the arrangements set out in the Local Transport Act 2008 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. These amendments seem entirely sensible—unless the Government have other reasons, and we would be grateful if they elaborated on those if they do.

Amendment 43, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, again probes the Government as to why the decisions of a combined county authority must require the agreement of the mayor, rather than being determined by a simple majority of local councillors. We believe this would undermine local democracy, rather than empowering it. If decisions require the agreement of the mayor, a majority of councillors may be disregarded and the wishes of the people ignored. That is not democracy, nor have we heard any arguments as to why it is needed.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Jamieson and I oppose the Question that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill, since we do not see why the Government have deemed it necessary to amend the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to replace the constitutional arrangement it sets out. I hope the Minister will explain why the Government hope to empower mayors over other local councillors, since this does not empower local democracy; rather, it empowers a select few individuals tasked with representing large geographical areas with different communities, who inevitably will have different needs.

As the Bill stands, this will not further localism; rather it will centralise power and take away the decision-making powers of local councillors. Not only does this fly in the face of the Bill’s title, but we have not been given any justification or reasoning for it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and speak to these amendments to Clause 6. The clause relates to decision-making in combined county authorities and combined authorities and its purpose is to provide for a default structure of voting in both kinds of strategic authorities. In particular, that default structure would provide that in mayoral authorities the majority in favour of a decision must include the mayor, thus in effect giving the mayor a veto over decisions, since the majority excluding the mayor would not be decisive.

Before I turn to my amendments, and apropos of the question of whether the clause stands part, I will ask a question. I refer noble Lords and the Minister to Section 13(2)(a) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. The section enables regulations to be made about members, and Section 13(2)(a) states that those regulations can include provision about

“cases in which a decision of a CCA requires a majority, or a particular kind of majority, of the votes of members of a particular kind”.

It seems to me that that paragraph of the levelling-up Act enables exactly what the Minister is setting out to do by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation. Could she tell us why primary legislation is required to achieve this purpose? That might inform our deliberations on the stand part debate.

Amendments 42 and 44 are in my name. I do not share my noble friend’s desire, set out in her Amendments 41 and 43, to take out the mayoral veto from the clause. I have been a resident in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority for however many years. When we had a mayor, the mayor found it very difficult to secure, for example, a non-statutory spatial strategy, not least because the mayor was often frustrated in getting a policy through due to the votes of one of the strategic authority’s constituent councils. In my view, if you elect a mayor and you want a mayor to exercise leadership in a strategic authority, it does not follow that the mayor will necessarily be able to get everything that the mayor wants, and the mayor will have to secure a majority to do so. It is very difficult for the mayor to carry on and provide that leadership if there is a majority that can carry proposals against his or her own policy.

This therefore forces the mayor to act in a certain way. I have seen that in Cambridgeshire, where the current mayor, Paul Bristow, is doing a very good job; he will be known to some of my noble friends. Partly because of this legislation, he is securing a majority in the combined authority, not least because there is an expectation that the strategic authority, when it gets these powers, will be able to make progress with the majority that includes him, and so he will not be able to be blocked by one constituent council.

I turn my focus to my Amendments 42 and 44. The former relates to combined county authorities. In this Committee, I am afraid that we are getting used to the fact that we have to do everything twice, because we have to legislate both for combined county authorities and for combined authorities; it will get a lot simpler when we have just one kind of strategic authority and when legislation for all strategic authorities is pretty much the same. Nevertheless, combined county authorities are governed by Section 10 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which enables the Secretary of State to set out their constitutional arrangements. Section 10(2)(b) includes

“the voting powers of members of the CCA (including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.

That is the existing legislation: it provides for different weights to be allocated to different members. The current situation is that the constitution of a combined county authority is not a “one member, one vote” arrangement—it can vary.

Clause 6 will insert new Section 13A into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It says that

“each voting member has one vote”.

So, what I am really asking by way of these two amendments—in this instance, for combined county authorities—is: does the primary legislation we are discussing now override, in effect, the existing potential for regulations to determine a different weight for different members for different decisions; or, because of this primary legislation, does it have to be “one member, one vote”?

There is a problem there. That problem was illustrated to me when we had a meeting just a few weeks back—my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook will recall it—about Suffolk. It was about unitaries, as it happened, but it also encompassed a discussion about the prospective Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority, which is in the devolution priority programme. The leader of Suffolk County Council was asked, “Suffolk is a single unitary and Norfolk is three, maybe even four, unitaries. What happens if they come together into one strategic authority?”

The problem is easily illustrated: one constituent council and one vote equals perhaps three votes for Norfolk and one vote for Suffolk. The leader of Suffolk County Council said, “That’s not a problem because we’ll weight the votes”. This is exactly what one would do using existing legislation, but I am worried that the structure of the Bill’s drafting will take that discretion away. That is the purpose of my Amendment 42.

My Amendment 44 relates to combined authorities, not combined county authorities, but it runs to the exact same issue. Of course, combined authorities are governed not by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, Section 104 of which provides that the constitutional arrangements for combined authorities may, by order, be made according to the provisions of the Local Transport Act 2008. Section 84 of that latter Act relates to constitutional arrangements; subsection (2)(b) refers to

“the voting powers of members of the ITA”—

the integrated transport authority—

“(including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member)”.

The Committee will recognise those exact same words, so we are dealing with exactly the same issue: is it different weights for different members, or is it to be overridden by “one member, one vote”?

I want, as the outcome of this debate, for us to be sure that this legislation continues to permit a constitution for a strategic authority that both allocates different weights to different members and enables voting power to reflect the wide range of circumstances of constituent councils and other voting members of strategic authorities.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief because it would be better if the Minister responded to the important points that have been made.

I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but I want to say two things that will, I think, help in this situation. First, we must get clarity about which powers are only for the mayor and which are to be shared with the combined authority; it is important that that be made clear. Secondly, on voting in the combined authority, there is at times a requirement for a two-thirds majority and, at other times, a requirement for a simple majority. We need to be absolutely clear why those differences apply.

With that, I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

45: Schedule 2, page 116, line 20, at end insert—
“2A In section 12D of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (contents of spatial development strategy), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A spatial development strategy must identify the policies which are of strategic importance in order to meet the local growth priorities identified in the relevant local growth plan for that strategic area.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment links the local growth plan to the preparation of the spatial development strategy.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Clause 6 provides, right at the end, that Schedule 2 makes further provision, including in relation to the spatial development strategy that strategic authorities are required to produce under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by Section 58 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Those who are former inmates of the Stockholm syndrome that was the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will recall this very well. I apologise to all those noble Lords for revisiting this, but I hope with a useful purpose.

Alongside a spatial development strategy, the Bill requires, in Clause 39 and Schedule 20, the strategic authority also to prepare a local growth plan. Noble Lords will see that, by virtue of the transport and infrastructure powers of strategic authorities and their power to charge a community infrastructure levy linked to that infrastructure provision—Clause 34 and Schedule 15 provide for that—the strategic authority will need to have, in addition to a local growth plan, an infrastructure strategy and an infrastructure delivery framework. I hope that is what they intend to do. The purpose of my amendments in this group is to link these things together. I entirely take the point that the Minister may rightly make: “Surely that’s what strategic authorities have to do”. But we have statutory provision in relation to the spatial development strategy, in particular, that does not refer across to local growth plans and I think it is important that it does.

There are two things that should be linked. Amendments 138 and 144 say that the local growth plan should identify, for the spatial development strategy then to take into account, the employment, industrial, commercial and logistic growth opportunities identified in the local growth plan. Noble Lords will recall from the Planning and Infrastructure Act that there are a number of specifics that the spatial development strategy has to take on board, but they are essentially housing related. I did not succeed in persuading the Government that they should also specifically take account of employment and related issues. But that is exactly what will happen in practice, and ought to happen: the local growth plan and the employment opportunities associated with it should be an essential part of the strategic process of establishing the spatial development in that area. I cannot see that they can be separated and done without reference to each other.

Amendments 139 and 145 are intended for the local growth plan to identify the infrastructure needed to meet the growth priorities set out in the local growth plan. As a consequence, it must identify the employment-related implications for the spatial development strategy. I do not think that I am inventing these kinds of processes. I have been involved locally for a number of years—I refer to my registered interest as chair, over the years, of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The way a local plan is established—and in due course the spatial development strategy for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough—starts from an understanding of the future employment implications of the growth that will occur in our area. It is substantial and those growth priorities will be laid out in the local growth plan, a draft of which has already been produced by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. That is a starting point for understanding the spatial development strategy that I hope it will now rapidly go on to produce.

There are two sets of amendments, one for county combined authorities and the other for combined authorities. I hope that Amendments 138, 139, 144 and 145 would secure an internal coherence between the local growth plan and the infrastructure priorities derived from that local growth plan, which is then linked into the planning of where that growth in employment and housing should be located through the spatial development strategy. I hope that consistency would enable the strategic authorities to work effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Each local area will consider its local growth plan, and I hope they will all look at culture. We have carefully considered and are reflecting on the comments made on the competencies we included. This is important, and I gave some stats on the first day of Committee on the benefit to the economy of some of the culture in my own county. It is important that all areas consider this as a key part of what should be in any development strategy and local growth plan.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am most grateful to the Minister for that response and to all noble Lords who spoke on this group. In particular, I give warm thanks to those who supported Amendment 46. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, rightly said, we may need to think about this again on Report, just to check, for example, that the National Planning Policy Framework does what the Minister says it does. At the moment, I cannot honestly say that I am sure that it does.

Noble Lords who are often in these planning discussions will always find it rather odd to try to work out that the Government sometimes say that we need to put something in the Bill. For example, local nature recovery strategies are prescribed to be taken into account for a spatial development strategy. Why not prescribe the land use framework? That, apparently, will be covered in the National Planning Policy Framework, which, as we know, is a document that derives statutory weight. So, if it is in there, the weight is there, and that is fine. But the point is that we are writing this legislation now, and this gives us an opportunity for Parliament to say what it thinks, because we cannot and do not debate the content of the National Planning Policy Framework in the way that we debate this legislation. So, there is a reason why we do this now, in the here and now.

There are many links to, for example, environmental well-being, local nature recovery strategies and promoting the adaptation to and mitigation of climate change in the way spatial development strategies are to be constructed. I just think we need to be absolutely certain that Ministers will make that clear in the NPPF. Indeed, they have a power under Section 12D(7) to prescribe the matters that spatial development strategies must include. We just need a bit more certainty that these things will be prescribed.

Where the relationship with the growth plan is concerned, I completely take the Minister’s point. It is just that, although growth appears to be the priority, actually the spatial development strategy says that the strategic authority should focus on the consequences of growth rather than on delivering the growth. The relationship between the local growth plan and the spatial development strategy is much more of an ex ante than post hoc set of decisions. You want to go upfront and say that we are designing the local growth plan alongside the spatial development strategy and not trying to retrofit the housing to meet the local growth requirements. I hope that that is what is going to happen; otherwise, I fear that these will be two teams in strategic authorities, with the economic development people on the one hand and the planning people on the other, when they should be one team producing one strategy. I hope that we can encourage that as much as possible through the nature of the debates we are having.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Amendment 49 would allow the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation to cause a mayoral combined authority to cease to be a mayoral strategic authority if, and only if, the combined authority consents for this to be the case. That would allow the structures of local government to be formed locally, according to local needs, priorities and democratic wishes, rather than setting in stone structures that may not be suitable for local communities later down the line.

On the creation of established mayoral strategic authorities, Amendment 47 would remove the proposed power of the Secretary of State to designate a mayoral strategic authority as an established mayoral strategic authority because we believe that the process should be locally led and not imposed from above. Amendments 48 and 50 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley also address the creation of established mayoral strategic authorities.

The Government White Paper set out the eligibility criteria for accessing the established mayoral tier. These amendments seek to give a basis for deciding whether proposals for a mayoral combined county authority, a mayoral combined authority, or for being designated an established mayoral strategic authority, have substantive merit.

We also know that the scope of integrated settlements for mayoral strategic authorities will be confirmed at each spending review, on the basis of functional responsibilities and their value, by a formulaic process. Can the Minister please elaborate on what those responsibilities are and on the formulaic process? Authorities need to be able to feed back on the amounts and types of funding they receive, so what process will be in place to ensure that funding is based on funding received from authorities?

In addition, how will government ensure that the timeline for this Bill aligns with the timelines for new strategic authorities and the spending review? Will the new mayors have the same powers and financial resources made available to them as the existing mayors? Local government reorganisation should not be undertaken simply for the sake of it; the Government’s plans and timelines need to be coherent and co-ordinated and underpinned by genuine principles for devolution to be meaningful and effective. I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords and the Minister’s response on these matters. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 48 and 50. It is another of those occasions when there are two amendments to achieve one purpose. Amendment 48 relates to county combined authorities and Amendment 50 to combined authorities, and each is on the question of under what circumstances they should be able to be designated by the Secretary of State as an established mayoral strategic authority.

On the purpose of designation, two key things happen when you are an established strategic authority. First, you can have access to an integrated financial settlement. This is quite an important issue, although it is not in the Bill because it is financial; it would be determined by Treasury financial legislation. However, this being established means that it is a gateway to the ability to manage finances with what we would call in departments the power environment between different headings. These would normally not be available to local authorities where they receive delegated funding for one purpose and want to be able to use it for other purposes.

As we progress, if there is to be a significant tourism revenue to strategic authorities, the financial arrangements of strategic authorities will be an important element. We may come back to that in later groups. I do not want to dwell on that. The point is that this is the gateway to an integrated financial settlement from the Treasury. Very few strategic authorities have it now. I suppose that London and Manchester will get it first, in this spending review, then other strategic authorities will get it in the next spending review.

Secondly—we will no doubt come back to this on Clause 51—there is the ability of established mayoral strategic authorities to seek additional powers and functions within the designated areas of competence. That is quite an important additional power. These are two important powers, and Amendments 48 and 50 ask by what means the Secretary of State decides whether they should be established. What is in the Bill sets out a process but no criteria.

Paragraph 2.2.4 of the English devolution White Paper told us that there would be criteria for accessing the established mayoral tier: that the strategic authority has

“been in existence … for at least 18 months … has a published Local Assurance Framework in place … has not been the subject of a Best Value Notice, a MHCLG commissioned independent review, or a statutory inspection or intervention … is not subject to any ongoing (or implementing) recommendations from an externally mandated independent review; and there are no material accounting concerns covering the current or previous financial year”.

These are essentially matters of financial governance and accountability. I do not understand why the Bill makes no reference to the criteria the Secretary of State would apply, given that the devolution White Paper has set them out specifically. If my amendments were accepted, an indication would at the very least be given of the criteria: effective governance, accountability, and specified performance metrics.

It is a good idea that, as this develops, a specific power be provided in the legislation enabling the Secretary of State to publish the criteria that will be applied to the question of designation. It would not be right simply to say that there is a process but no criteria. We should have the criteria established.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Before my noble friend responds to the debate, I want just to be sure that I am clear. On the criteria that are applied by the Secretary of State to the question of whether a strategic authority that applies to be established should be permitted to do so, so far they presently include what the devolution White Paper said. None of that has been withdrawn and nothing has been added; it is still the same. But if that were to change at some point in the future, the Government do not need a power in order to change it, because the Secretary of State will simply issue some document that says, “From now on, this is how the Secretary of State is going to look at these decisions”. It is important to get these criteria right. Unless I am misunderstanding the Minister, the intention is that this is a gateway through which you can pass in only one direction. You become an established mayoral strategic authority and you cannot come back if it is wrong, so the criteria have to be right, and the mayoral strategic authority has to be able to live permanently with that status. Am I correct about that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, the noble Lord is right, but this is quite a high level of criteria. There are some financial aspects, but the fact that the authority must not have been subject to a best value notice, an independent review, a statutory inspection or intervention in the previous 18 months covers a wide variety of activity in a strategic authority. There is a rigorous process and a very high bar for those authorities to get over. When we look at the established authorities that I mentioned in relation to the progress on where we are with these now, they have been in place for a long time. Some of them are requesting additional powers to do things that were not traditionally in the framework for mayoral authorities. It is important that that is a high bar for them to get over.

As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, having an integrated settlement is an important step forward for those authorities. We hope that this will be a transformational process and that all the combined and combined county authorities will strive to get to that process once they have a mayor in place. We do not want it to be something that slips back. Let us hope that we can set these criteria, setting the bar high, which indicates the direction of travel we have for devolution, and move forward so that our authorities have the powers to do what they need to do locally.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting; I promise that this will be the last time. On the question of tourism revenue, if there is a tourism tax or whatever, what do we know about the arrangements for that? Is it the case that only established mayoral strategic authorities will be able to levy any kind of tourism tax because they have the financial governance and accountability arrangements established for this purpose—forgive the use of “established”, but the noble Baroness can see what I mean—or is there an intention that this would be a wider financial offering to strategic authorities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The tourism tax is an interesting step forward because, as far as I know, this is the first time a fiscal power has been devolved. The Government are keen to test out that devolution of fiscal power; I do not have the details at my fingertips so I will write to the noble Lord on the detail of how it is moving forward.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a visual artist. Amendment 4 in my name is a small but important clarifying amendment. It simply adds the words “including through tourism” to paragraph (d) of Clause 2, which already defines “economic development and regeneration” as a core “area of competence” for strategic authorities. This reflects the Local Government Association’s view that tourism should be explicitly recognised in the Bill rather than left implicit.

Tourism is not a marginal activity; it is one of the principal ways in which economic development and regeneration happen in practice. It supports local jobs, sustains town centres, underpins cultural and heritage assets and brings external spending directly into communities. In many places, particularly outside the large cities, it is the economic driver.

I have deliberately not proposed tourism as a stand-alone category nor sought to incorporate it into the important Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. His amendment rightly strengthens the strategic recognition of the arts, heritage and creative industries. My amendment is narrower and more operational. It simply makes it clear that tourism sits within economic development and regeneration, which is how local authorities already understand and deliver it in practice.

Too often, tourism is grouped alongside the arts and creative industries in local authority structures, where its scale and commercial focus can unintentionally shape priorities and funding conversations that are not directly about culture itself. Placing tourism clearly within economic development helps to maintain that distinction while allowing cultural policy to retain its own strategic clarity. This matters particularly in the context of the Government’s emerging work on a visitor or tourism levy. Even at modest levels, published estimates suggest that such a levy could raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year in England and potentially over £1 billion annually if applied more widely—sums that would exceed Arts Council England’s entire annual capital budget and be comparable in scale to a decade of lost local authority cultural investment.

In the Cultural Policy Unit’s helpful paper A City Tourism Charge—the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will no doubt develop this point further on Amendment 6, with which I entirely agree—there is a strong and well-evidenced case that a significant proportion of any such levy should be invested directly in cultural and heritage assets, which are often the very reason that people visit in the first place. For strategic authorities to play a meaningful role in shaping and deploying such tools, tourism needs to be clearly within scope. Without explicit inclusion, there is a risk that tourism falls between stools—assumed but not quite owned. This amendment provides clarity, not prescription, and I hope that the Minister will see it as a proportionate and helpful addition.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 8 in my name, which would have the effect of adding to the list of areas of competence in Clause 2 an additional paragraph (h), “community engagement and empowerment”. Noble Lords would not be surprised by the suggestion that this should be designated as one of the areas of competence of strategic authorities and mayors, as the clue is in the Title: the Bill is about community empowerment, and community engagement is instrumental to the achievement of community empowerment. It is therefore one of the areas of competence for mayors.

This led me to thinking about what the Government are trying to achieve by listing the areas of competence—let us understand that and then we can decide what it is sensible to put into the list. As it happens, the White Paper was somewhat more helpful than the Bill itself in this respect, since quite clearly what is intended, as the White Paper puts it, is that this list should comprise

“areas where Strategic Authorities should have a mandate to act strategically to drive growth as well as support the shaping of public services, where strategic level coordination adds value”.

I am looking at that and thinking that “competence” is not necessarily the right word for this; perhaps it is “responsibility”. Let us not worry about the word, but let us at least understand what the Government are trying to achieve. Then I realised that, of course, the point is that they have listed seven because subsequently there is an intention to have up to seven commissioners. Is the answer, “Well, there just has to be seven”? I do not think we need constrain ourselves in that regard.

I then thought that perhaps these are listed because they are the areas of functional responsibility where additional functions are provided by the Bill at a later stage, but when one looks at the functions of mayors, six are the subject of additional functional responsibilities and powers itemised later in the Bill. Environment and climate change is left out but is none the less an area of competence, so we are clearly not talking just about what the Bill adds to mayors by way of responsibilities; we are talking about what mayoral strategic authorities should be engaged with to drive growth, to create social cohesion and to shape public services.

It seems to me, therefore, that there are a number of additions and no problem about how many, as long as they are genuinely representative of the areas of competence—meaning, responsibility and functional powers that are available to mayoral strategic authorities. It seems to me—this will save me getting up and saying anything more on the next two groups—that both Amendments 6 and 7 have merit, in that respect, in adding arts, cultural and creative industries on the one hand and definitely adding rural affairs on the other.

The number of commissioners should be determined in their own right, rather than by reference to the number of areas of competence. If there are more areas of competence than there are commissioners, that is not a problem. Interestingly, while listing the seven areas of competence as we have them in Clause 2, the devolution White Paper said:

“We are interested in where this list could be expanded now or in the future”.


I think that we can help the Government by expanding the list. I personally think that all three that I mentioned could be added without any demerits. They would then be more comprehensively illustrative of the range of functional activities that strategic authorities should be engaged in, in order to achieve maximum growth, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, quite rightly illustrated by reference to tourism—how they can promote growth, shape public services and improve the circumstances for the populations that they serve.

From my point of view, community engagement and empowerment is central to the delivery of many of these. I have no intention that community engagement and empowerment should be the responsibility of a commissioner. It should be the responsibility of the mayor and, of course, it is a cross-cutting area of competence. I can see no reason why one would leave it out, since it is instrumental to the achievement of the objectives.

I shall finish with just one question to the Minister, which I am perfectly happy to take up with her at a later stage. If it is indeed the Government’s belief that this list may be expanded, either

“now or in the future”,

as the White Paper said, where is the power to add to this list? I cannot find such a power. It seems to me that on the face of it there should be such a power. Even if the Government are not persuaded today, clearly in the future, if, for example, using later powers, the mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities were to make proposals for changes to the Secretary of State and acquire additional functional responsibilities, this may be in a new area of competence, but where is the ability to put that into the legislation? I hope that the Minister may, at this or a later stage, agree that we should add an order-making power at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will finish what I am saying, then I will see whether I can answer the noble Baroness’s question.

Including public safety within the areas of competence is important for several reasons. First, it enables devolution of further public safety functions. For example, consideration is currently being given to the role of strategic authorities in resilience as part of the post-implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, due to be completed by March next year.

Secondly, it allows mayors to delegate certain existing functions relating to public safety to a commissioner; where the mayor is responsible for policing, they must appoint a deputy mayor for policing to whom policing functions are delegated. Additionally, the inclusion of public safety within the areas of competence allows a mayor who is responsible for fire services, but not for policing, to delegate certain fire-related functions to a public safety commissioner.

Thirdly, it enables the mayor to convene local partners and collaborate with other mayors to tackle questions of public safety—something all residents would expect them to do. There is a wide range of activity in which we would expect mayors to participate.

Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, seeks to clarify how strategic authorities will seek and assume powers within their area of competence and then be held to account. One of the central aims of the Bill is to move away from the current patchwork of powers and piecemeal devolution of functions. To that end, the Government’s ambitious new devolution framework will set out a coherent and consistent set of functions.

Part 2 of the Bill sets out specific functions and the voting and governance arrangements that strategic authorities will automatically receive at each level of the devolution framework, categorised under the relevant area of competence. For example, the duty to produce a local growth plan is categorised under the “economic development and regeneration” area of competence. The Bill allows for new powers and duties to be added to the devolution framework over time, ensuring that it remains adaptive and responsive to future needs and policy developments. Mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities will also be able to request and pilot new functions so it will be possible to test and evaluate outcomes ahead of adding new functions to the framework.

Finally, I turn to accountability. Combined authorities and combined county authorities—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, while the Bill clearly allows for additional functions and powers to be given to mayoral strategic authorities, the specific question was whether the Bill has a power to enable the areas of competence list to be amended.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I heard the noble Lord’s question. I responded earlier that I will come back to him on how this works within the Bill, so if that is okay, I will do it in writing and share it with other Members of the Committee.

Combined authorities and combined county authorities are required in law to establish both an overview and scrutiny committee and an audit committee. Also, all strategic authorities are expected to follow the principles and processes in the English devolution accountability framework and scrutiny protocol. The Government remain committed to strengthening local accountability and scrutiny, and we are exploring models such as local public accounts committees; we will provide an update on our proposals in that regard in due course.

I hope that, with these reassurances and explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and my noble friend Lady Scott have stolen my first line about the size of this group; that is largely down to the structure of the Bill, which has numerous schedules. Consequently, we have tabled a vast number of amendments to make a relatively simple change.

I thank all noble Lords who tabled amendments on these issues. They are not merely technical adjustments; they are amendments that go to the heart of our concerns about the true purpose and direction of the Bill and the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking in it. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has made clear, we on these Benches firmly believe that devolution must be locally led, rooted in local identities and local democracy, and not imposed by central government. Genuine community empowerment cannot be handed down by central diktat, which imposes structures that override locally elected representatives and residents. If devolution is imposed from Whitehall, it ceases to be devolution in any meaningful sense.

The amendments we have tabled seek to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot exercise powers affecting the governance, composition or boundaries of local authorities without their explicit consent. That consent is not an administrative hurdle; it is a democratic safeguard. Such changes must be based on local identities and local wishes to truly reflect the meaning of community. They should not be abstract or managerial plans drawn up at a distance in Whitehall, however well intentioned.

Communities are not interchangeable units on a map. They have histories, relationships and ways of working that cannot simply be redrawn by statutory instrument. Any restructuring must have a demonstrative benefit for local people, not just for the administrative convenience of central government. Crucially, it is local councils, through elected councillors accountable to their residents, who are best placed to judge what will or will not work for their area. This is a particular concern given the Government’s decision to cancel local elections this year, denying the vote to potentially 4 million people. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords’ thoughts on these timely issues and the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 21 and 24. My noble friends on the Front Bench have pretty much all the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is a pity that she cannot be here, but I join in sending her our very best wishes and look forward to her return to the Committee.

Amendments 21 and 24 are in the same area of where proposals can be brought forward for the establishment of new combined authorities. Before I go on, I could have tabled—I neglected to table—two further amendments about county combined authorities in exactly the same terms as Amendments 21 and 24, which relate to combined authorities. Therefore, perhaps the arguments I am making on combined authorities can be taken as read-across.

The purpose of my Amendments 21 and 24 is to challenge the process by which the Secretary of State would make a decision on a proposal for a combined authority or a combined county authority that is brought forward by the constituent councils in an area. As things stand under the existing legislation, which was set up in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act but, for the purposes of combined authorities, is in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009—LuRA 2023 has the same for combined county authorities—the way it works is that those proposals come forward for an area and are subjected to tests.

I am interested, in terms of how the tests are currently applied, in whether they are likely to improve

“the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people of the area”.

Additionally, I suggest that the proposal should be required to include the purposes that are intended to be achieved by the establishment of this combined authority or combined county authority. The Secretary of State would have to look at and assess—these are the tests—whether those improvements in economic, social and environmental well-being as well as the purposes included in the proposal are likely to be met.

To me, these are two elements of the test of whether a proposal coming forward from an area should be accepted. The first is an objective test: will it improve the well-being in the area in various ways? The second is more subjective but none the less purposive: the people in this area and the constituent councils have said why they want to have this authority, so the Secretary of State should look at those purposes and say whether they are likely to be met. In this Bill, the question put to a relevant proposal—what purposes are you trying to achieve?—is simply swept away. There is no requirement for such a proposal to have those purposes any more.

Amendment 21 would remove the requirement to have purposes so that they cannot form part of a subsequent test. The test that is to be applied would no longer be the test of economic, social or environmental well-being, which is an objective test related to the benefit to the people living in that area, and would be replaced by a statutory test: is it appropriate to make the order in relation to the area, having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence? In those words, “convenient” leaps out in particular. It makes one think that what my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook was just saying about the desirability of having conformity is what is actually driving these decisions now, rather than, “What is going to happen to benefit the people who live in this area?”, which should be the objective test.

That question did not escape the notice of the Lords Constitution Committee. In its 16th report, published on 13 January, it stated:

“We draw this provision to the attention of the House. It should satisfy itself that it is content to grant the Secretary of State this power within Schedule 1 to subject the new arrangements for a combined authority to such a broad and potentially subjective test”.


Of course, in the text at which the committee looked, what the committee means by “broad and potentially subjective” is, by implication, a bureaucratic test—“Is it convenient for us to have a combined authority?”—whereas what we have at the moment, which is what the committee is referring to, is, in essence, a test of the benefit. It is intended to be able to be determined more objectively, and it is certainly more relevant to the people who live in an area whether a combined authority is or is not in their interests.

When we go on with this Bill, I hope that the Government will in each of these respects think whether the statutory test should have perhaps both the bureaucratic element of whether it is convenient and the objective element of whether it can demonstrate that it will bring benefit to the people who live in this area.

My noble friends have two amendments in this group, Amendments 22 and 36, the purpose of which, as far as I can see, is to remove the power for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of combined authorities and county combined authorities. It seems to me that although the Minister said this is an exceptional power, there is a risk that once this power is available—again, because it will be convenient to do so—we will be instructed to have combined authorities according to the Secretary of State’s proposals rather than the ones brought forward from within the area itself.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very happy with the amendments spoken to so far, so I will not repeat what has been said. Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock relates to whether the Secretary of State determines local boundaries and whether decisions on local authority boundaries within a combined authority area are a matter for central or local government. In the spirit of this Bill, which is about devolution, I can see no reason why central government has to be involved. It ought to be a matter for local councils to decide on. Perhaps the Minister might explain why my noble friend Lady Pinnock has got this wrong; it seems to me that she has got this right.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the Planning and Infrastructure Bill return to this House for the final time. After today’s debate, the Bill will soon conclude its passage through Parliament and will thereafter become law. It will drive investment and productivity, and facilitate a step change in the delivery of the new homes and critical infrastructure our country so desperately needs.

This legislation will create certainty and speed up the process for consenting nationally significant infra- structure. It will create a new sustainable model for development and nature recovery, and establish mechanisms for effective cross-boundary strategic planning. We can and must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. That is why we have been so determined to ensure we can make use of its provisions as soon as possible and why I am delighted that, following today’s debate, it will shortly become law.

We have already debated at length the intention behind Amendment 33, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Following our debate last week, the Government tabled an amendment to give effect to this change, which will now see the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am pleased to say that, on Monday, the other place agreed to the government amendment which gives effect to that change, removing the unnecessary provisions in Amendment 33 in respect of future regulations, for which there are already powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his continued engagement. This change, alongside existing safeguards built into the legislation, will ensure that an appropriate amount of parliamentary scrutiny is able to take place on these provisions ahead of implementation. Given that this House has already confirmed its agreement with the noble Lord’s amendment, I trust it will now lend its support to Motion A. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as the mover of the original Amendment 33, I am grateful to the Government for accepting the substance of that amendment. I therefore agree with Motion A to agree to the Commons’ further amendment. I heartily endorse what Minister Pennycook said in the other place on Monday: it is now about getting on with using the powers that are available under this and previous legislation. I wish the Government well in that endeavour.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, all through the debates on the Bill, we on these Benches have agreed with the principle of what the Government are seeking to do, but had concerns about the balance being created between the necessity to improve construction times, especially with infrastructure, and bearing in mind the needs of our environment and our heritage in particular. We do not think the balance is right at the minute, but we agree that the Bill must proceed.

On Motion A, we wholeheartedly agree with the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which we have supported throughout the Bill. With that, I thank the Minister for all her helpful discussions on the Bill and hope that this is the last we have to say about it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as noble Lords can see, this is a doorstop of a Bill. I draw attention to my registered interests as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, and I support development forums in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cheshire as well—but of course anything I say is entirely my own view.

As a former Leader of the House of Commons with responsibility for parliamentary counsel, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that more than two-thirds of this Bill is to be found in its schedules. When parliamentary counsel published their most recent document on the drafting of Bills, they said that technical detail should not interrupt the narrative—the story one is trying to tell in the Bill—but that special attention should be paid to the question of whether material should be relegated to the back of the Bill. Well, virtually everything has been relegated to the back of the Bill. We have something like two dozen clauses that do not tell you what their intention is but simply tell you that there is a schedule to go and look at.

A rather effective example, referencing the interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is Homes England. The powers of Homes England in relation to the acquisition of land are to be found in Schedule 16, introduced by Clause 35, but it makes no reference to Homes England; it references only strategic authorities. So the uninitiated reader of the Bill would not find anything about Homes England in its contents at all, yet there are powers provided for it.

I will take only a couple of minutes, because there will be many opportunities in the Bill to take up many of the issues that I know the Minister understands very well. As we finish the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on Wednesday, we will start this Bill with some of the same issues in our minds: neighbourhood planning, how to relate local growth plans to spatial development strategies and, for that matter, what the spatial development strategies of strategic authorities should do in relation to the national land use framework when it is published.

On the principle of the Bill, I share the view that many have expressed that we want to see devolution achieved. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referenced the Localism Act 2011, but the then coalition Government, of which I was very proud to be a member, set us down this important path, which we wanted to see completed. I think our expectation was that, 15 years on, we would probably see devolution across the whole of England and Wales, but it is tough to do.

My own experience is in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which is interesting and instructive, because it is not one of the city mayoralties with a metro mayor. From the outset it illustrated the difficulty, because we had parish and town councils—actually, there was no town council in my own constituency, because we had nothing in those days as large as a town. But we had parish councils, a district council, a county council and a combined authority. That was too many, and in principle the Government are right that we should arrive at a simpler structure. If we are going to have a strategic authority, we should have beneath it unitary authorities, to which people can relate, that are responsible for the delivery of the great majority of those local government functions.

At the same time, as these authorities get bigger, we must have effective neighbourhood governance. I am interested that there does not appear to be a schedule that tells us the detail of what effective neighbourhood governance looks like. We just have Clause 60, which tells us that appropriate arrangements should be made for that, but that is something that the Minister in the other place told us would be set out by way of principles in statutory guidance. Well, noble Lords might well find that it would be instructive for us to set out what the principles for effective neighbourhood governance might look like, rather than leaving it to civil servants in the ministry to do so at a later stage.

The only other thing I want to draw attention to is the importance of pace. When we had a devolution priority programme, I thought it was a priority programme because we would get on with it. I declare that I live in Suffolk—we have had contributions already from Norfolk, and we will have at least one more. We thought that we would get on with it, and people in local government thought that we would get on with it and have responded on that basis. It feels a bit like that memorable occasion: being sent to the crease having had one’s bat broken. I am afraid that, after the Bill’s passage through another place, it feels like the Minister—for whom I know we all have the greatest respect—had her bat broken by that decision before she came here to stand at the crease, as it were, to look after the Bill.

I have to say that I am a cynic. My noble friend Lady Shephard talked about this decision and why it might be motivated. It may be to do with this Bill because it will allow those mayoral elections to be conducted under the supplementary vote system in the future, rather than the first past the post system next year. Cynical politics is not what we were looking for in the devolution priority programme; we were looking for the positive politics of devolving decisions to local government and seeing local government take up that mantle. I hope that we can see that principle through in the Bill.

Fair Funding Review

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend that we need to make sure we realign funding with need and deprivation so that local authorities can deliver for their communities—as I said, the services that are needed and the economic growth that they need. The vast majority of councils with social care responsibilities will see their core spending power increase in real terms over the multi-year settlement. We will publish our response to the fair funding review and the policy statement and set out our plans for the first multi-year local government finance settlement. That is really important because it gives councils the certainty they need to plan over the medium to long term.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, while councils will benefit from increased council tax from new homes being built, the cost of providing services to those new homes will not be included in the baseline funding level unless and until there is a reset. Can the Minister tell the House how frequently the Government will undertake that reset so that the cost of providing services to homes is built into the baseline funding level?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Lord the exact answer to his question now. We have said that creating this multi-year funding settlement will help local authorities to plan for the future. We will keep in constant contact with our local government community to make sure that the changes we are making are made on up to date data—we have looked at a completely new dataset for the indices of multiple deprivation—because the data that was being used was not up to date. The Government will be working closely with local authorities as we move this forward to ensure that it is delivering the change we all want to see.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the informal meeting I had with the Minister last week. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in relation to my Motion E1, and I too will refer in a moment to the letter received. I am compounded by the fact that my train was late. This time a van had collided with a bridge, but, fortunately, there was no lasting damage and no-one was hurt, not like the Selby rail disaster. Then, I found that they have changed the classic Outlook to modern Outlook, and I could not load my emails. But I am very grateful for having had sight of the letter.

The Minister will be aware that the Toddbrook reservoir failed on 1 August 2019. Since that time, the Balmforth review was set up, but it is not due to report until 2027. My concern as regards large reservoirs is that the Government do not seem to be displaying any sense of urgency. I am mindful of how much reservoirs cost to build, even in spite of NSIPs under the Bill before us this evening, and that there are other barriers to overcome. The Minister may or may not be aware that each individual reservoir has to be signed off by a panel engineer. There is a chronic shortage of panel engineers, and I do not know that that is being addressed by the Government any time soon. My understanding—I have tracked this since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was adopted—is that the de minimis rules allowing a small on-farm reservoir require legislation to amend the de minimis rule to make sure that these on-farm, non-hazardous reservoirs can be constructed.

I take some comfort and great heart from what the Minister said when speaking to Motion E1 this evening, but I do not know that the issues that I have raised, both in Committee and on Report, have actually been addressed. The Minister referred to guidance being published. Can she confirm whether or not that is statutory? Just so those seeking to construct such reservoirs are very clear on it, what will the status of that guidance be? When will the actual guidance to which she referred be published?

Having made those remarks, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House, depending on what reassurance the Minister is able to give me. I put it to her informally last week that this amendment is designed to help the Government.

In June, the Environment Agency published its National Framework for Water Resources, which called for measures to curb the water deficit, including building more reservoirs, in the light of the potential public water shortages of 5 billion litres of water a day by 2055. We in Yorkshire are very conscious of the fact that the reservoirs have still not filled up since the drought this year. We have every prospect of a drought continuing into next year. The efforts to extinguish and control the wildfire on the North Yorkshire Moors were hampered by the lack of access to water. It was also the case that it was difficult for crops—arable and horticultural—to have access to water, and there was difficulty around the availability of watering for livestock.

These are very real urgent issues. I am afraid that the reason given by the Commons for failing to agree to Amendment 32 is very thin. We are told that it is not

“necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs”.

I have set out this evening the reason for urgency and why this is a very real issue. I believe we need to write in the Bill the concerns I have set out.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion B and Motion B1, which is the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lords Amendment 2A, which has been sent back to us, in effect puts the Planning Act 2008 back into the position it was originally in. To that extent, it is not so objectionable. But we are looking to ensure, as my noble friend eloquently presented, both now and on Report, that when these decisions are being made we take full account of the protections that should be available for irreplaceable heritage assets.

In addition to the assurances about national policy statements that the Minister has given to my noble friend, I ask her whether she will look at the guidance, which Clause 7(2) provides for, that can be given about the preparation of local impact reports, which as she will know are a material factor in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008. If that guidance makes it clear that the local impact report must make specific reference to the heritage assets that are to be affected, and to the impact on not only those assets themselves but their environment, that might highlight any potential adverse impacts for when the Secretary of State has to weigh up the adverse impacts against the benefits under the Section 104 decision. I hope that the Minister might add that to the ways in which the assurances might be bolstered to protect heritage assets.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion E1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In particular, I agree with her about the level of urgency and the slow progress that has been made on this, and about the de minimis rules, which need thoroughly updating to make it more possible to avoid drought situations. I have just one question for the Minister. She referred to a paper appearing later this year. Does she mean this calendar year—in which case it would be just in time for my Christmas stocking?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, as well as moving Motion F, I will also speak to Motions G, J and J1, with the permission of the House.

I will begin with Amendment 33, which was from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which sought to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on this very important issue. Having reflected on our useful discussions in previous debates and subsequent correspondence and having heard the strength of feeling in the House on this point, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Government agree with the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will therefore use the next opportunity in the other place to bring forward an amendment which will seek to give effect to the intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation are subject to the affirmative procedure. This, alongside the further safeguard built into the legislation which places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, should ensure an appropriate amount of scrutiny and engagement ahead of the implementation of the national scheme of delegation. I very much saw the noble Lord’s point about the first set of regulations coming forward, and I hope he is reassured on that point.

Amendment 37, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, exempted assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very constructive engagement on this issue. We agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them though the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently under consideration by this House—we have not had its First Reading yet, but it will be imminent. If we agree where someone wants to demolish an asset of community value, it is only right they should have to submit a planning application so that the full planning merits can be considered. That is why the Government committed in the other place to consult on this proposal at the earliest opportunity. As mentioned in the debate in the other place, Parliament has granted the Secretary of State powers to make permitted development rights through secondary legislation. As such, the Government feel we should follow the proper route to amending these through important consultation. We hope these commitments reassure the noble Baroness, and we look forward to a consultation on the matter shortly. I hope the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to look at the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. There are significantly greater powers over community assets in that Bill than currently exist, and I hope that will reassure her of our intent in this matter.

Amendment 39 was on brownfield land and sustainable development. I completely agree with Peers on the need to prioritise and fully utilise brownfield land. I want to be explicit and assure Peers that the Government already have a brownfield-first approach to development—a principle that successive Governments have adhered to. That is why the Government updated the National Planning Policy Framework last year to further strengthen policy support for development on brownfield land. It currently states:

“Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.


We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include “large areas of hardstanding”, bringing more brownfield land into scope and limiting the need to look at other types of land. Of course, it is also the case that, as well as prioritising brownfield development, the existing NPPF already provides protections for non-brownfield land—such as protected landscapes, green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty—alongside guiding developments away from, for example, using the best and most versatile agricultural land where possible—I know that was a matter of great concern to noble Lords.

Last year, the Government published a Brownfield Passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. This included exploring the role of national policy in setting minimum density expectations for certain types of locations to support intensification in the right places. But we are committed to going even further to embed the brownfield-first policy into our planning system, which is why I can commit to consulting on a revised framework later this year that will set out a more rules-based approach to planning, including ensuring that brownfield land is the first port of call for development. In that consultation, we will put forward proposals that help prioritise brownfield land for development, set clear expectations for where development can take place and make best use of existing infrastructure to grow and densify our towns and cities and to support sustainable development. Our proposals will explicitly encourage mayors and local authorities to accommodate more development on brownfield land and specifically relate this to spatial development strategies.

I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned that policy changes alone are not strong enough. I make it clear that the NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework—and all the points I have made previously on the priority use of brownfield land—is a material consideration in planning decisions. All strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, this is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.

Our newly revised NPPF, which we will consult on before the end of the year, will provide even clearer policies to drive more certain decision-making, including on brownfield development. Our changes will signal a step change and make clear our ambitions to drive forward brownfield development. We expect changes to meet the objectives of the brownfield-first principle. Our proposals will provide a crucial opportunity to test our approach and consider evidence from the sector to ensure that policies are robust and impactful.

We also know that policies can take time to feed through the planning system, and we will continue to keep policy and associated guidance under review. As such, legislative changes are not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that may not support effective delivery, or that sometimes may not allow for local circumstances to be taken into account.

I fear that the amendment would have become a charter for those who may seek to thwart development and the preparation of SDSs. First, the amendment would bite into SDSs. These are higher-level frameworks with the key aim of planning for medium-term to long-term housing and other development needs, aligning infrastructure provision to support that development. SDSs should of course take a brownfield-first approach, which, as I have mentioned, is already enshrined in a national policy framework that will go even further to prioritise brownfield land.

The other aspects of this amendment would create a legislative requirement for increasing densities and reducing travel distances. These are problematic in not allowing for the consideration of local issues—for example, the character of an area, the settlement patterns or the presence of important heritage assets. Consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at local level. As noble Lords know, brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable for development. A policy approach allows us to trust local planning authorities to arrive at appropriate judgments on the suitability of brownfield sites, having weighed up a balance of considerations. I am afraid that having such legislation, alongside creating overly rigid requirements, would serve only to open up SDSs to the increased risk of legal challenges on potentially very local issues that are not the aim or purpose of strategic development strategies. This may slow them down in providing the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.

Therefore, with the strong assurances I have made and the commitments to further strengthen the approach to brownfield land, I hope noble Lords will see the Government’s clear commitment on this and agree with the Motion not to insist. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chair of the development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank the Minister warmly for her engagement and that of her officials with Amendment 33 and for the Government’s support for it, giving this House the opportunity to examine on an affirmative procedure the first use of the national scheme of delegation. I shall not reiterate, as noble Lords have heard it in Committee and on Report, my view of the importance of the national scheme of delegation and, indeed, some issues about how it is to be used and structured. It is not simply a case of how important it is; there are still outstanding issues on the structure of the national scheme of delegation.

I am immensely grateful to the Minister that the Government are going to look that we insist on Amendment 33. I apologise for my poor drafting. Noble Lords know that I try hard on these matters, but I neglected to note that, if it became an affirmative resolution, the structure of the Town and Country Planning Act already provides that other regulations beyond the first use are automatically regarded as negative procedure. There will be further amendment to remedy that when the other place finishes its examination.

While I am standing up, I want to say that I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lady Scott about the scrutiny that we have afforded to this legislation. She and I—and, indeed, the Minister—went all the way through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. We spent 23 days in examination of that Bill, and we have spent only 16 days on this one, so to that extent we have rushed it through. I thoroughly support Motion F.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I have a question about the amendment that the Minister has just moved to Clause 65. She will recall from the debates on Report that there is a whole structure in Clause 63 that is designed to allow Natural England, when making an environmental delivery plan, to focus on one environmental feature and, in relation to that feature, to focus on one negative effect of the development on it. It is structured so that the others are excluded, notwithstanding the wise insertion into that clause of material relating to water, nutrient neutrality et cetera. The new amendment, where the Secretary of State can make regulations relating to prioritisation, does not refer to the negative effect on development identified in an environmental delivery plan, but it talks about

“addressing any negative effect of development on a protected species or on a protected feature of a protected site”.

To boil that down, my question is: is it the intention that the Secretary of State’s regulations would look at only the negative effect of development on a protected feature that is identified in an EDP, or is it, at an earlier stage, setting out prioritisation in relation to what may be the negative effects of a development on a particular feature? I am afraid that it makes a significant difference when and how the prioritisation comes into effect.

While I am on my feet, I say a big thank you to the Minister and her officials for the several—in fact, many—occasions on which they have provided helpful guidance and advice on the interpretation of the Act, but I reiterate my continuing request that we be told when the powers that are relevant to the implementation of this Bill but are contained in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act are to be commenced or, more to the point, implemented. She knows that we are waiting on many of these and that they are as significant as some of the planning measures in the Bill itself.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to thank the Minister for her engagement and her reassurance on the exercise of CPO powers and the engagement of the private sector.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

232: After Schedule 6, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleMayoral Development Corporations for planning and development purposes: amendment of the Localism Act 2011Introduction
1 The Localism Act 2011 is amended in accordance with this Schedule.Part 8
2 In the heading of Part 8, after “London” insert “and areas of other mayoral strategic authorities”.Interpretation
3 In section 196—(a) before the definition of “the Mayor” insert—““CCA” means a combined county authority established under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“combined authority” means a combined authority established under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;“constituent council” means—(a) in relation to a combined authority—(i) a county council the whole or any part of whose area is within the area of the authority, or(ii) a district council whose area is within the area of the authority;(b) in relation to a CCA—(i) a county council for an area within the area of the authority, or(ii) a unitary district council for an area within the area of the authority;and here “unitary district council” means the council for a district for which there is no county council;”;(b) for the definition of “the Mayor” substitute—““the Mayor” means—(a) the Mayor of London,(b) the mayor for the area of a combined authority, or(c) the mayor for the area of a CCA;”;(c) after the definition of “MDC” insert—““strategic authority area” means—(a) in relation to the Mayor of London or a mayoral development area designated by that Mayor, Greater London;(b) in relation to the mayor for the area of a combined authority or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the combined authority, or(c) in relation to the mayor for the area of a CCA or a mayoral development area designated by the mayor for such an area, the area of the CCA;”.Designation of Mayoral development areas
4 (1) Section 197 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “Greater London” substitute “a strategic authority area”.(3) In subsection (3), in the words before paragraph (a), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may designate a Mayoral development area only if—(a) the Mayor considers that designation of the area is expedient for furthering economic development and regeneration in the strategic authority area,(b) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by subsection (5B) and, if applicable, subsection (5C),(c) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees,(d) in the event that those comments include comments made by a constituent council or a district council consulted under subsection (5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance,(e) the Mayor has laid before the combined authority or CCA, in accordance with its standing orders, a document stating that the Mayor is proposing to designate the area, and(f) the combined authority or CCA approves the proposal.(5B) The persons who have to be consulted before an area may be designated are—(a) the constituent councils,(b) each Member of Parliament whose parliamentary constituency contains any part of the area, and(c) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.(5C) In the case of a combined county authority, any district council whose local authority area contains any part of the area also has to be consulted before the area may be designated.(5D) For the purposes of subsection (5A)(f) the combined authority or CCA approves a proposal if it resolves to do so on a motion considered at a meeting of the combined authority or CCA throughout which members of the public are entitled to be present.”.Exclusion of land from Mayoral development areas
5 (1) Section 199 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Before making an alteration, the mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA must consult—(a) the constituent councils, and(b) any other person whom the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult.”.Transfers of property etc to a Mayoral development corporation
6 (1) Section 200 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (1), for “a person within subsection (3)” substitute “an eligible transferor”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferor” means—(a) a London borough council,(b) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,(c) any company whose members—(i) include the Mayor of London and a Minister of the Crown, and(ii) do not include anyone who is neither the Mayor or London nor a Minister of the Crown, or(d) a person within subsection (3).(1B) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority, “eligible transferor” means a person within subsection (3).(1C) In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a CCA, “eligible transferor” means—(a) any district council whose local authority area is within the area of the CCA, or(b) a person within subsection (3).”.(4) In subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraphs (a) and (b);(b) in paragraphs (d) and (e), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”;(c) omit paragraph (k).(5) In subsection (4), for “liabilities of—” substitute “liabilities of an eligible transferee.(4A) In the case of an MDC for an area in Greater London, “eligible transferee” means—”.(6) Before subsection (5) insert—“(4A) 20 In the case of an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA, “eligible transferee” means—(a) the combined authority or CCA, o(b) a company that is a subsidiary of the combined authority or CCA.”.(7) In subsection (9), after “(4)(c)” insert “or (4A)(b)”.Functions in relation to Town and Country Planning
7 (1) Section 202 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (7), for “the Mayor” substitute “the Mayor of London”.(3) After subsection (7) insert—“(7A) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA may make a decision under any of subsections (2) to (6) only if—(a) the Mayor has consulted the persons specified by section 197(5B) and, if applicable, section 197(5C), in relation to the area,(b) the Mayor has had regard to any comments made in response by the consultees, and(c) in the event that those comments include comments made by the constituent council or a district council specified by section 197(5C) that are comments that the Mayor does not accept, the Mayor has published a statement giving the reasons for the non-acceptance.”.Arrangements for discharge of, or assistance with, planning functions
8 In section 203, in subsections (1) and (4), after “City of London” insert “, or a county council or district council”.Acquisition of land
9 (1) Section 207 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In subsection (2), for “Greater London” substitute “the strategic authority area”.(3) For subsection (3) substitute—“(3) Before submitting a compulsory purchase order authorising an acquisition under subsection (2) to the Secretary of State for confirmation—(a) 15 an MDC for an area in Greater London must obtain the consent of the Mayor of London;(b) an MDC for an area in the area of a combined authority or CCA must obtain the consent of the mayor for that area.”.”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 232 relates to mayoral development corporations. Noble Lords will recall a debate in Committee about this precise point. To remind noble Lords, in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, presently in the other place, the Government have proposed that the powers available to the Mayor of London in relation to the establishment of a mayoral development corporation should be provided to all mayors of established strategic authorities—I think that is correct. Noble Lords will also recall that I previously tabled an amendment to this effect back in July, so I was pleased to see that the Government were proceeding in exactly the same direction, but disappointed that this has been included in the English devolution Bill rather than here in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where Part 4, which we have now reached, is devoted to development corporations. It was certainly my understanding and intention that we would debate and, I hope, adopt the measure of giving all the mayors access to the same powers.

As a simple way of bringing that forward, I took Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and transposed it into what would become a new schedule to this Bill. I anticipate that it is not the Government’s intention to disagree with the content of Amendment 232, since they wrote it; however, they appear to be set on resisting the idea that it should be included in this Bill and, on the basis of our anticipation of Royal Assent being reached only in a matter of weeks rather than months, be brought into force rapidly.

As it happens, since Committee, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee has had the opportunity to consider Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of that Bill and has not amended it, so there is no requirement for us to think of it having changed. I suspect, based on the discussion in that Bill Committee, it will not be returned to in substance on Report. I do not anticipate that the English devolution Bill, when we see it, will have any different text from what we see here now.

I put it once more to Ministers, but will not press it because what would be the point? It is their Bill, their language, their schedule that they can have now, in my view—and why would they not? It seems to me that most mayors, certainly the ones I have spoken to or their representatives, would like the powers sooner rather than later.

Quite early in the new year, probably before the English devolution Bill has received Royal Assent, we will be discussing the question of which new towns will be mayoral development corporations as opposed to government development corporations or locally led ones. These are precisely the issues which are the subject of this part of this Bill. I put it to noble Lords that it would be better to take this provision, include it now, and bring it into force at an earlier stage. I beg to move

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we have much sympathy with the core principle behind this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, regarding mayoral development corporations. The purpose of Part 4 of this Bill is to create a more flexible, and perhaps more robust, framework for development corporations. The existing way that development corporations work has limitations with regard to some of the development that all of us seek—transport infrastructure, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has helpfully reminded us that this selfsame wording is in the devolution and empowerment Bill, currently going through its stages at the other end of the building, so those of us who will have the joy of debating that Bill, when it comes here, will be coming back to this issue.

The main concern we have, though, is about the decision being vested in the hands of the mayor and the rather narrow representations of the leaders of the constituent authorities—this will not come as a surprise to the Minister. This is an erosion of meaningful local planning influence, reducing local authorities to mere consultees whose considered objections can be dismissed. This amendment could grant substantial planning control over designated areas by placing the decision-making at the mayoral level, with its minimal approach to democratic engagement and consultation. While mechanisms exist for arrangements concerning the discharge of planning functions, this shift inherently concentrates strategic planning functions away from the local level.

Amendment 232 is a way forward in potentially accelerating growth plans, but it is achieved at the expense of local democratic involvement and, crucially, would lose having a strong voice from those residents directly affected. In a nutshell, this is an interesting and important proposal, but it bypasses local democracy.

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

My Lords, Amendment 232, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to standardise and extend powers in respect of mayoral development corporations to mayors of all strategic authorities outside London. I understand why the noble Lord has brought his amendment forward. The Government are bringing forward equivalent provisions via Clause 36 and Schedule 17 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and I understand his view that inclusion of this amendment would expedite the legislative change. I welcome that enthusiasm: it is essential that all mayors have powers to establish and oversee mayoral development corporations, which are a key tool to drive large-scale development and regeneration in their regions.

None the less, the amendment would not save significant time. The Government are committed to ensuring that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill reaches Royal Assent in spring 2026, at which point there will be no delay. The relevant provisions will commence on the day that the Act is passed, providing relevant mayors with the powers to establish development corporations. The amendment would also have minimal impact because, except for the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority—I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, might be particularly interested in that one—all mayoral strategic authorities currently have powers to establish and oversee MDCs. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, as well as any new mayoral strategic authorities, will automatically receive mayoral development corporation powers following Royal Assent of the English devolution Bill.

Finally, and I think this reflects the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, it is appropriate that Parliament scrutinises provisions providing mayors with mayoral development corporation powers, as part of the wider package of powers being granted to mayors through the devolution framework in the English devolution Bill. Therefore, while I understand the reason that the noble Lord has brought Amendment 232 forward, I hope that he will consider withdrawing it.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for contributing to this short debate, and particularly grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. I heartily endorse what he said about the importance of trying to resolve the relationship between the processes of local government reorganisation and the rapid progress we want to achieve in implementing planning reform in order to get on with building the houses and developments we are looking for.

I should have previously referenced my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The Minister is absolutely right: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor should have access to development corporation powers—even though the Government’s apparent intention, as I think was stated last week, was that the Cambridge Growth Company will be turned into a development corporation in the Cambridge area. We have yet to know in what designated area and with what powers, but that is for another day.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s assertion that the delay will be so limited. Let us hope that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does not get at all bogged down in the new year, because we want to be sure that those powers are available to mayors where they come forward to take up the potential new town designation. I was wrong when I said “mayors of all established strategic authorities”; I know it is my amendment, but I have just checked, and it does not say that. It refers to all mayors of strategic authorities. Whether they should be established strategic authorities is a question we might have a look at when we get to the English devolution Bill. But for the present, while looking forward to returning to these interesting issues in the new year, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 232.

Amendment 232 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

235: Clause 94, page 124, line 33, leave out “and” and insert “to”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to another amendment in Lord Lansley’s name to clause 94.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, this group containing, happily, not only my amendments but Amendment 238 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, is about the designation of new towns. The purpose of Amendment 236, which is the substantive one in my name, is to provide for additional parliamentary scrutiny of the designation of new town development corporations—those controlled by the Government. It is particularly about those under Section 1(1) of the New Towns Act, whereas elsewhere in that Act, locally led new towns, for example, were subsequently inserted. This provision would not apply to them; it would apply only to those controlled by the Government.

The point is that there are substantial implications in having a new town controlled by the Government. Designating the area and, for that matter, the powers that are to be given to that development corporation, and therefore by extension taken away from a local planning authority and vested in a development corporation, is a highly significant issue.

The super-affirmative procedure which the proposed new clause would introduce is, as the parliamentary guide would tell us, intended to be reserved for highly significant statutory instruments. I think this fits that bill. We are talking about the potential transfer of powers, potentially for relatively large areas, away from democratic control for decades.

For example, in the recent report by the New Towns Taskforce we saw a proposal for a dozen new town sites, some of which are pretty substantial. If we look at the area described as Brabazon and West Innovation Arc, it comprises three substantial areas to the north of Bristol. If all the planning control in that area were to be taken out of the hands of local authorities for what might be decades, it would make a very big impact in that area. The scrutiny of that by Parliament at the outset is important.

--- Later in debate ---

On the issue of borrowing and raising private finance directly, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned the Local Government Pension Scheme, and we had a question on that this morning in Question Time. I agree that it is worth exploring how the Local Government Pension Scheme can help with these types of investment. That will all come as part of a wider funding toolkit. It requires careful consideration to make sure that we properly balance the benefits and risks, including the possibility that mayoral development corporations could accrue significant debt and liabilities—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. We must also consider how the proposed borrowing powers would interact with mayoral strategic authority borrowing. We will need more time than is available on this Bill, but I can commit that the department will consider these changes in the future. For the reasons I have given, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short, as the Minister said, but I thought very interesting debate—a preliminary to the further debate that I hope we will have, not least if we can contrive to have an early debate on the Built Environment Committee’s report in the new year at a time when we can incorporate the Government’s full response to the task force report and the Government’s actual proposals for new towns. We learned from my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow that if there is that range of issues to be considered in relation to one of the new town proposals, we can expect a lot of contributions when we get to a dozen such proposals, not even including Cambridge, from my own point of view, which is beyond the task force’s report.

What the Minister had to say was encouraging from the point of view of getting parliamentary debate to take place without impeding or delaying the programme in any way. I hope that, when we have that debate, we will come back to some of the important issues raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller. He made some important points, in my view, about the capacity for financing this. Tax increment financing and the ability to borrow against the future development value will be a key part of that.

From my part, in relation to parliamentary debate on the new towns programme, I was grateful for the Minister’s response, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 235.

Amendment 235 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 250. I know that many noble Lords are much better versed in the law around this than I am. However, I want to touch on the point about land held in trust for enjoyment by the public. In situations where such a purchase will mean that the public’s rights of enjoyment will not be maintained, surely there should at least be extensive consultation with local communities, with their views taken into account, and where there is strong objection, surely at the very least some alternative provision should be made.

Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, I am concerned that this amendment will erode the rights of the general public and that they will not have a suitable, easily accessible mechanism to defend their rights or negotiate a solution to satisfy both parties. The law is beyond the reach of most normal people as it is so expensive. Judicial review would probably be off-putting to local communities not familiar with law.

If I have read this amendment correctly, it would appear to backdate this right. Surely that is very unusual and we ought to be looking to the future. I hope that when this issue is given further consideration by the Government, they will consider the rights of local people and ensure that their voices are heard and they are given primary consideration.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee. I want to follow up briefly, because in this debate we are getting a more comprehensive view of the problem and, potentially, of the solution. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred to the fact that the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 brought in the provisions now in the Local Government Act 1972. Last time we were told about these ancient pieces of legislation: the Public Health Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906. The fact that they are ancient pieces of legislation is neither here nor there. The thing we are dealing with was inserted in 1980, which is why the amendment refers to 1980.

What should happen in the future? In future, if land to which the public have some rights of enjoyment and access is to be disposed of by a local authority, the local authority should consult. And what the legislation requires is not too onerous: it is to advertise for two weeks and consider any objections raised. This is hardly too much. That is for the future. Clearly, the public benefit should be incorporated into whatever decisions are made as a consequence of that.

For about 45 years local authorities thought, because of what is in Sections 122(2B) and 123(2B) of the Local Government Act 1972, that if they did not do that, not only was the sale still valid but the trusts relating to that legislation were extinguished. They were wrong about that, so we have to put them back in that situation. Essentially, we have to look back and say, in all these decisions made over that period, where local authorities operated on what turned out to be a false basis, they must take into account the public benefit that might have been derived from the trust and find some other way of doing it. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, explained to us how, in one instance, it is the intention of the All England Lawn Tennis Club to ensure that significant public benefit continues to be provided by way of access to open space and public enjoyment. That is exactly where we need to go. But the legislation needs to reflect both the requirement for consultation and that there may be some continuing necessity for the public benefit either to be enjoyed in that open space or by some alternative means.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just said. Philanthropists in the past gave areas of green space and there have been scandals where councils have sold them off for money, and we all complain that there are no more playing fields, for example. This smells a bit like that. It is almost land that has been protected by accident by a legal quirk that has prevented it being developed subsequently or sold on for development unwisely.

To my mind, this is surely a case-by-case matter. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, made a very powerful case for Wimbledon. Maybe he is right, but I am sure that plenty of sites around the country are not quite so green and lovely in their eventual outcome. I find it difficult to support an amendment that alters everything across the board. Going back, almost in a time machine, doing a proper consultation and the substitution of what is being lost has to be the approach, rather than what is proposed in this amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will also introduce Amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments in this group propose alternative solutions to environmental blockages to planning and development, either as replacements for Part 3 of this Bill or as substantial improvements to it. To my mind, the most important amendment in this group—and the most important to Part 3—is Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I added my name in Committee and on Report. For transparency, I again refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as a farmer, a forester, a landowner, a residential, commercial and renewable energy developer and a shareholder in various natural capital-related businesses and partnerships.

I am very grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—who, sadly, is unwell today; we send her our best wishes—for their time during the passage of this Bill and for listening to our concerns. We have fundamental objections to Part 3. First, it undermines the existing mitigation hierarchy and is a retrograde step in nature protection. Secondly, it attacks the rural economy by giving Natural England enhanced CPO powers without explicitly saying that the private sector should be engaged in delivery, as well as undermining nascent biodiversity net gain markets. It gives little or no accountability by handing all that responsibility to the arm’s-length body of Natural England, which appears highly unlikely to have the capacity to deliver the environmental delivery programmes, as is envisaged.

Not only is there no evidence that this will have any immediate benefit to the housebuilding sector, but, after the CG Fry decision by the Supreme Court last week, this part of the Bill will reimpose habitats regulations on decisions related to Ramsar sites and immediately reblock tens of thousands of houses. We also hear concerns from industries that should stand to benefit from Part 3 that there is no visibility of the level of the nature restoration levy or control over outcomes of environmental delivery programmes, and therefore reputational issues if they were to go wrong.

The amendments in this and further groups will address these and other issues, but there is a bigger question that I challenge the Minister to answer. What exactly is Part 3 designed to solve that cannot already be solved through existing structures and more targeted tweaks to that system, as we and others propose? We asked this repeatedly in Committee and I do not yet feel that I have had a satisfactory answer. It would also be helpful to the House to have some comfort that the Government are listening to our concerns, which echo every interested wildlife and rural organisation outside this Chamber. I am grateful to all that have provided briefings—there are simply too many to list.

Amendment 122 is designed to force the Secretary of State to take final responsibility for the actions of Natural England and place parameters around that responsibility, to provide greater protection to the rural economy, our food security and rural community and traditions. We on these Benches distrust these supposedly independent arm’s-length bodies and, for that reason, would like the Secretary of State to take this responsibility and be answerable to Parliament and the wider community for the performance of these EDPs. Why do the Government not want the Secretary of State to take this responsibility?

Amendment 201 is a simple amendment that would allow the Secretary of State to deal specifically with the nutrient neutrality issues that are said to have been blocking 160,000 new houses. This is a repeat of our amendment that was defeated by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I have two questions that I have previously put to the Government that have not yet been answered. Without this amendment, how many of those 160,000 blocked houses can be released immediately on Royal Assent? How many houses will be reblocked by Clause 90 reimposing habitats regulations restrictions on Ramsar sites, beyond the 18,000 already identified in the Somerset Levels?

Amendment 203 would require the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to publish a report on how to consolidate the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, to allow us to have a framework dealing specifically with nature protection in the UK. There have been news stories that the Government are considering a nature Bill. That would appear to be in line with what we suggest. Would that not be the appropriate place to undertake such a far-reaching re-evaluation of the protections that our natural environment deserves, rather than a planning Bill?

I will leave the introduction of Amendment 130 to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, but I want just to highlight the benefits of the approach that we see in this amendment and to underline our support. We hope that this approach will find favour with all Benches, given that it addresses so many of the concerns from different viewpoints. Nature and species would not be put at risk should this amendment pass. CPO powers would be much less likely to be required for Natural England. The private sector would be the natural counterparty to achieve these aims. Finally, nutrient neutrality appears to be the key challenge from environmental considerations in planning, as emphasised by the Home Builders Federation in its briefing; Natural England could focus on this particular issue and increase the chances of success.

We hope to hear a constructive response from the Minister to Amendment 130. We would like to hear that the Government might at least accept the principle of limiting EDPs to these impacts until they are proven to work. We on these Benches are a responsible Opposition and would like to work in the manner in which this House works best in order to improve the Bill and to make it both workable and successful in the real world. The Government’s approach to data in Part 3 does not give us full confidence that they are approaching this in the same manner. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 128 and 129 in this group, which are in my name. I suggest to noble Lords that, if they want to follow the purposes of these two amendments, it is best to have a look at Clause 55(1), since they are, in essence, about understanding how the drafting is intended to work and what that means in relation to the practices of an environmental delivery plan in due course.

In Committee, we had a useful probing debate in relation to these issues to try to understand whether all of the environmental impacts of a development should be identified in an environmental delivery plan. The debate showed that it was not the Government’s intention that an environmental delivery plan—EDP for short—should identify all of the environmental impacts resulting from a development to which that EDP relates. Relevant in this group is that, for example, the EDP could focus on a specific subset of environmental impacts, or one or more environmental impacts, such as river quality or nutrient neutrality. Given that that is the intention—I am arguing not with the intention of the Bill in that respect but, simply, with the drafting of this provision to give effect to that—how should that potential focus be reflected in the structure of the power for making an environmental delivery plan?

Clause 55(1)(a) provides that the EDP will identify

“one or more environmental features”.

An environmental feature is either a protected feature of a protected site—Clause 93 can be seen for interpretation —or a protected species. An example that I think is relevant and useful, not least to the debate that we are shortly to have on Amendment 130, is the effect of a development on a protected site, such as through nutrient pollution arising from a development in, say, south Norfolk, which might have an impact on the nutrient level in the Broads. The Broads, as the protected site, and the nutrient level, as the feature concerned, could be the environmental feature to which the EDP relates. That being the case, if that feature is the subject of the EDP, should each of the ways in which a negative effect on that feature arises be identified in the EDP? I think that it should.

Amendment 128 would change “one or more”. I direct noble Lords to Clause 55(1)(b), where it refers to

“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”.

That defines the environmental impact. I propose in Amendment 128 that we take out “one or more”, so that the sentence would read

“the ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”—

that being the environmental impact.

That would preclude the possibility that there may be ways in which the development causes the negative effect on that feature but they are omitted. I do not understand why it would be at all reasonable for them to be omitted. That being the case, I hope that the environmental impact is always defined by reference to the ways in which a development impacts on a protected feature of a protected site or species. The focus can be narrow—which precise feature?—or it can be wide.

However, the next line after Clause 55(1)(b) says:

“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”.


It feels a bit as though Ministers have decided not only to not necessarily to deal with all the effects of a development—they can focus down; we have accepted that—but that they definitely do not even need to explain to us in the EDP how the negative effects on a protected site, or a protected feature of a site, are to be understood and incorporated into the work of the EDP.

Instead of taking that out, I have chosen, in Amendment 129, to define it a little more precisely. Why are the Government doing this? I think they are trying to say that we might be looking at an environmental feature, such as algal bloom in the water in the Broads resulting from a change in the nutrient level, but we do not want to focus on the question of allowing things to be left out of a count in the EDP because they simply relate to that effect; we want to focus on where the development gives rise to the effect.

Amendment 129 proposes adding to Clause 55(1) so that after

“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”,

it states,

“unless they are environmental impacts expected to result directly from the development to which the EDP relates”.

I hope that clarifies the purpose of the Bill, which is to focus, in an EDP, on the feature that is concerned and the specific ways in which a development might create a negative effect in relation to the feature that gives rise to the EDP.

I hope that makes clear what the amendments are intended to achieve. I hope that what this does is in line with the Government’s intentions in relation to an environmental delivery plan and that, from the Government’s point of view, Amendments 128 and 129 would therefore do no harm to the purposes. Even if Ministers are not immediately able to accept them, I hope that they might reproduce something of this kind at Third Reading.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 130 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their support. When preparing this speech, I went back to remind myself of the core objectives of the Bill: to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure and, as part of this, to simplify the process by which we address impacts on the natural environment.

I would argue, however, that what we have before us is a further layer of potential bureaucracy. I say that because, if the Bill passes as it is—this has been confirmed in the other place but also in this House—developers will have to take on an additional layer of assessment. They will now need to do an environmental impact assessment, a habitats regulations assessment and a biodiversity net gain assessment, and then apply for an EDP for specific features, before they even pay into this nature restoration fund. I struggle to see how that streamlines the process for developers, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us how this will speed up the process.