English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, my contribution today addresses one ingredient in the Bill that is easily overlooked but which could prove of immense significance in achieving the quantity and quality of new homes the nation needs. I am referring to the measures in Part 2 that will facilitate strategic authorities—mayors and combined authorities—establishing mayoral development corporations and development corporations of combined authorities, including combined county authorities. These development corporations can take on planning powers, land acquisition and development powers. They will be single-minded and focused on achieving new housing and all the related infrastructure. This will create an alternative to the nation’s current total reliance on a small number of volume housebuilders who plan, design and provide most of this country’s new housing development but who so often fail us in what they produce.

Development corporations can trace their origins to the establishment of overarching planning and development bodies for the pre-war garden cities, and then for the 32 post-war new towns. The most recent example is the London Legacy Development Corporation, or LLDC, which has been doing such good work in the redevelopment of the Olympic site and its environs. Development corporations are already the chosen vehicle for delivery of the new generation of new towns, as set out in the excellent report from the New Towns Taskforce published in September. New town development corporations will follow the pattern of land acquisition and land value capture, creating a master plan, with private financing, and long-term, overarching control in the hands of a publicly accountable body. Now this Bill enables all strategic authorities to establish their own development corporations and assume the same roles as the new town development corporations.

For some years, I have championed the report by Sir Oliver Letwin which dates back to 2018. The Letwin review pointed out that the oligopoly of volume housebuilders will build only at the speed they can sell, without having to reduce their prices. This has ensured that there is always a gap between supply and demand, leading inexorably to growing housing shortages. Letwin recommended ending our dependency on developers that, entirely predictably, work at their own pace and negotiate down the standards and quotas of affordable housing to maximise their profits. In their place, Letwin advocated the establishment of development corporations that would acquire the land and capture the increase in its value when planning consent was subsequently granted. The development corporations’ master plans can then parcel out the site to different profit-making and non-profit-making bodies, covering the full range of types, tenures and uses: housing for sale but also for shared ownership, market rents and social rents; housing for older people and for students, with specialist and pioneering ingredients; plus the place-making green spaces, mixed uses and amenities needed for all new homes.

As an example of the potential of this approach, the Devon Housing Commission, formed by the local authorities in that county, pointed to the opportunity for a development corporation to develop strategic sites in Devon. This would ease pressure on the county’s 10 planning authorities, with the combined county authority taking a cross-boundary view for exemplary major developments. The danger here is that mayors and combined authorities have other important matters to handle, and this route to more and better housing provision may not lead to the strategic authorities taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the Bill.

I have three questions for the Minister, who has a deep understanding of these issues. First, will the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provide the necessary seed corn as a financial incentive for the strategic authorities to set up their own development corporations?

Secondly, will the MHCLG be drawing up guidance on the governance, funding and delivery of new development corporations? If so, I commend a new report from a distinguished group of architects and planners called Placemaking not Plotting, which provides a helpful basis for the key aspects of urban design to be adopted in place of current poor practice.

Thirdly, are the Government planning to support delivery by these new development corporations with grants or guarantees, perhaps via Homes England, for the initial land purchase on which so much will depend? Any news from the Minister on government support to get these development corporations off the ground would be greatly welcomed. With proper backing from the MHCLG, this component in the Bill, which streamlines the development corporation approach, could revolutionise the quality and quantity of tomorrow’s new homes and communities.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

As the Minister had a lovely birthday yesterday, I am sure, I hope that she is in such a good mood that she will look favourably on Amendments 52, 56, 60 and 260 and the reasons that they are needed. We need a legal base to create an additional commissioner, and I argue very vigorously that it should be a rural commissioner. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, quite rightly create the possibility of considering the needs of rural communities by having rural affairs added as a competence. I believe that there should be an obligation in the Bill for deeply rural areas such as North Yorkshire to have the possibility, with the legal basis in these amendments, of creating a rural commissioner. With those few words, I urge the Minister to support these perfectly formed amendments for this purpose.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7 and 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. They are supported by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association, and an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and I was once a rural development commissioner.

These amendments would add rural affairs to the areas of competence for strategic authorities and require those bodies to have regard to the needs of rural communities. As the noble Baroness explained, these amendments would ensure that rural areas are not overlooked in the affairs of mayors and combined authorities in relation to the use and development of land, regeneration, housing, employment, health and well-being. The fact is that rural areas have distinct characteristics, but rural communities are likely to comprise only a small fraction of the total population of a mayoralty or combined authority. The amendments would ensure that the needs of these localities get proper consideration.

I shall illustrate the kind of differences that distinguish a rural area from the rest by reference to the all-important housing matters that affect so many households in these places. They are very likely to be areas of lower incomes and higher house prices relative to the rest of the strategic authority area. The local population also faces extra competition for available accommodation from those commuting from elsewhere, rightsizing retirees and, in many places, second home buyers and those letting on a short-term basis of the Airbnb variety. Yet the amount of social housing is appreciably lower: about 11% for areas classified as rural locations, compared with 17% for the country as a whole. The right to buy has removed a larger proportion of council housing in these areas, and many villages now face a virtual absence of affordable homes for those born and bred in the area or needing to live there for family, caring or occupational reasons. Without affordable homes, rural communities can die. Recently, I chaired the Devon Housing Commission, which made important recommendations in relation to the strategic advantages of combined authorities. It also gave clear warnings of the huge significance of housing pressures for those living in rural areas. Since rural housing schemes are mostly small, they do not trigger the obligation on house- builders to include any affordable accommodation.

Set against these many disadvantages facing rural areas, there are positive opportunities that can uniquely help to address their different circumstances. Rural exception sites allow development that would not be permitted elsewhere. Rural housing enablers can help match social housing providers with landowners. Special grants are available from Defra and Homes England, so on the plus side as well, things are different for rural communities. The danger is that these distinctions are not taken on board by authorities which have very many other matters on their plates. Hence the value of these two amendments in requiring attention to be given specifically to the special aspects, good and bad, facing rural areas, as illustrated by my housing example. These amendments would ensure that these areas get the priority they so clearly deserve and I strongly support them.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady McIntosh, to all of which I have added my name.

First, I must declare my interest in that I still have a family farming interest in Somerset, although I am now retired and live in Cornwall. I must also declare an interest—it is more of a perspective, really—as having been the Prime Minister’s rural advocate under a previous Labour Government. I was charged with representing rural interests in the Blair Government and often reported directly to the Prime Minister himself, especially during the foot and mouth disease outbreak at that time, which caused major problems—both social and economic—for rural areas. At that time, I was also charged with producing an annual rural-proofing report for the Government. Believe me, it was badly needed—and still is, in my view. The Social Mobility Commission recently reported that inter- generational poverty in rural England is now as bad, if not worse, than in our most deprived urban slums.

I might add, just to prove my Cross-Bench credentials, that I was also asked to produce a one-off rural-proofing report for the Conservative Government some 10 years ago. I should say that I had more difficulty with the latter role than the former. No sooner had I produced my 2015 report outlining the important job that the rural affairs section of Defra had to play in the agenda than the department, under Liz Truss—she of sound judgmental fame—virtually closed down the rural affairs section, so the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ceased to be Defra and became just Def.

I am glad to say that those times are now over and the voice of the countryside is once again being heard. Defra still seems to be a slightly shy promoter of the rural voice in MHCLG, the Department for Transport, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and, above all, the Treasury. It needs to be saying again and again, “Hey, what about our agenda? What about those who live in the countryside?” In the same way, such a voice is needed, or is going to be needed, in the new strategic authorities. Mainstreaming rural issues into policy-making and decision-taking is fundamental to enabling all strata of rural society to engage fully with modern life; and to ensuring that rural businesses, which are the lifeblood of these communities, can thrive in even the remotest parts of England. Of course, having a rural voice at the top table—or, at the very least, a duty to consider rural needs in each and every region—is absolutely key to this agenda.

There are more VAT-able businesses per head of population in rural England than in urban England. There are more manufacturing businesses in the countryside than in the towns—per se, not just per head. The percentage of self-employed people in the countryside is also more than in the towns, especially—this is why I am particularly proud of my fellow country folk—among those who are below the poverty line. This proves to me that we country folk desperately want to stand on our own two feet, but we need help to do so; we need help to release that entrepreneurial spirit.

As was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Best, housing problems in most rural areas are worse than in towns. There are few affordable houses left. The houses are more expensive and wages are lower. The houses tend to be less well insulated and heating costs are higher; mains gas, for instance, is rare in rural areas. Of course, the solutions are different there than in the towns, but I will not go into that here.

Training and skills problems are also different. How does a young person get to their class in their college 15 miles away when there is no bus? There might be one at 11 am or once a week on a Tuesday, for instance, but that is of no use to anyone. After college, how do you then get your first job? It is probably 10 miles away or more. It is a rural Catch-22 situation: you cannot get a job without a set of wheels, and you cannot get a set of wheels without income from a job.

Again, there are solutions to these problems, such as Wheels to Work, but the solutions need knowledge and need thinking about, along with a drive to push them through. For that, you need someone at the top table to tell it as it is—someone who is perpetually thinking about rural issues to ensure that the right policies are put in place. We need to try to create local jobs in as many communities as possible. That means improving connectivity, broadband and mobile services, as well as enabling planning policies; again, both of those are large subjects that I will not go into here.

The point is that ordinary life in rural England—shopping, doctors’ visits or even sports for the kids—is immensely hard when the only, but vital, family car has gone to work with the breadwinner. This lack of a car also means that kids at many schools miss out on all the extracurricular activities—football, sports, drama, music, et cetera—because they have to be on that school bus which takes them back to their rural village immediately after lessons are finished.

Also, rural households in poverty experience what academics call a rural premium, with living costs some 14% higher than for their urban counterparts, according to the academics. There is no cheap mains gas, which I have already mentioned, but only Calor gas or electricity; there is only older housing stock with poor insulation; food, clothing and transport costs are consistently higher; and there is limited access to childcare, healthcare and other basic services. All this compounds financial vulnerability. Thus, I say again that you need someone who understands all this, and who can speak up for rural interests when decisions are being taken at the top table.

Another factor which underlines the need for rural focus or a rural commission in these strategic authorities is the desperate shortage of government funding for rural areas. Although it is quite obvious to anyone who thinks about it that it costs more to deliver services to remote and sparse populations, central government funding for rural councils is on average 40% less per head of the population than for urban authorities—yes, 40% less per head. This differential is about to get worse under the so-called fair funding review. Therefore, a rural commissioner, or at the very least a duty to consider rural communities, is desperately needed to find ways of minimising the harm that such urban prejudice imposes on rural people.

This prejudice already results in rural council tax payers, for instance, having to pay on average 20% more per head than their urban cousins. For too long, I have been knocking my head against this concrete wall of prejudice against rural areas—too long to think that there is any chance of actually changing the financial situation. That is why I believe it will require a real rural understanding and focus to come up with the imaginative solutions which are so desperately needed to correct this long-standing imbalance.

It is crucial that mayors should have to appoint a commissioner for rural affairs whenever there is a rural element in their bailiwick. It has to be someone who can promote new jobs and make the necessary links. As I say, I know from experience that such a person can make a big difference to the quality of life for many people, whether it be in business, sport, transport, education, health or housing; or whether it be for the young, old or those in between. The countryside deserves a voice at the top table, and I believe these amendments will provide it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Shah (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having been here previously. I was not a Member of the House when the Bill first came to the House, so I could not speak on it then, but I would like to speak on it today. I will set out some context about my understanding of planning and where I come from. I was eight years as a planning lead in my local council, as the regeneration and planning cabinet member. I should also point out that I am an employee of the Local Government Association and I am still a councillor, so my remarks will be based on my own opinions and experience.

I will speak on Amendment 126, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for explaining her position on her amendment. I want to challenge that perception with my experience. I do not think this amendment is needed in actual practice. The points around democratic accountability and community involvement are based within the planning system already and the planning reforms that have come through. Good local plans should have involvement of the community and are democratically voted on in a full council chamber. Should an applicant come to a local council with a planning application and in good faith follow those policies, there should be some safeguards around making sure that those plans are upheld and seen through in development coming forward.

In my experience in London, in the eight years that I was planning lead, not one application needed to be called in or used by the Mayor of London to challenge what the local council had done, because we made sure that the developer or the applicant was able to follow the planning policies. So it is important to note that, in a good planning process, the local plan should be where the heavy lifting is done through community engagement and democratic accountability.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The amendment requires local planning authorities, separately or jointly, to appoint one qualified and experienced person to be chief planner. It would give due recognition to the officer responsible for planning matters in each local authority, as promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute—I declare that I am an honorary member of the institute. A very similar amendment was debated in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill last October. At the conclusion of that debate, the Minister said that she would

“keep this issue under review as we progress with further reforms to the planning system”.—[Official Report, 27/10/25; col. 1199.]

Our hope is that she will now be able to accept this proposition.

The case for a chief planner seems an excellent one. It would be a boost to the morale of those working in local planning authorities. It would represent an acknowledgement by the Government that planning needs to be recognised, as it once was, as a very prominent part of local government. When we debated this matter last year, it was noted that identifying the chief planner role is now more significant than it was following the Government’s action to achieve a national planning scheme of delegation for planning decision-making. Decisions on whether a planning application should be taken to the planning committee or dealt with by officers alone will depend on the judgment of two individuals: the elected member who chairs the planning committee and the chief planning officer. This important responsibility underlines the need for an enhanced status for the planning officer at the helm.

In preparation for the debate on this issue during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I spoke to the chief planner for Glasgow City Council, where legislation already confers a statutory status on the chief planning officer, accompanied by guidance from the Scottish Government on the duties, responsibilities, qualifications, skills and experience required. Glasgow’s chief planner told me of the importance of having one fully qualified person holding the position of chief planner, not least in enabling everyone to identify the key person responsible for planning matters. Indeed, events are now being organised that bring together chief planners from across Scotland, now that it is clear who shares this common identity. I spoke to an experienced planner in Wales who told me of hopes for a similar measure for Wales to that addressed by this arrangement. I strongly support this amendment as part of the devolution package for England.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—it is great to see her back here on her two feet. I shall speak first to Amendment 130 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. This amendment is straightforward. It provides that greenfield land should not be designated for development unless the relevant authority

“is satisfied that no suitable brownfield land is available within the relevant area”.

There appears to be universal agreement that building on brownfield first is the right thing to do. It provides a number of advantages. Not only does it save greenfield land, but it helps regeneration, utilises existing infra- structure and minimises transport distances, whether that is to work or to employment. It creates a better environment and promotes growth. While this is recognised, what does not appear to be recognised is the difficulty of building on brownfield land, particularly in high-cost areas such as London, due not only to the remediation costs but to high existing land use values.

When it comes to financing, if you are building an apartment block, you cannot generally sell an apartment until you have built the whole block, whereas if you are building on a green field, you can virtually sell house by house. Time scales tend to be longer and costs higher, due to the complexity of building in urban areas. Because of the high and early capital outlays, return on capital is often the determining factor, meaning that delays inevitably make projects unviable. In urban areas, it is all too easy to find grounds for objection, delaying the process. While a committed applicant may get through all these hoops, it can take years, by which time the project is no longer viable. Many do not even try, or they seek to build with lower quality in order to recoup their costs.

That is a particular problem in London. Last year only around 5,000 new private homes were started, against a target of 88,000 new homes. That has real-world consequences. London Councils estimates that more than 200,000 people in London are living in temporary accommodation or are homeless, of whom around 100,000 are children. That is more than 50% of the UK total. The previous Government introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This has proved to be a very effective tool in delivering development in rural areas because the relatively low upfront costs and the potentially sudden significant uplift in land values where there is not a five-year supply mean that landowners and developers can profitably challenge the planning system and regularly do so. Local planning authorities generally recognise this and tend to be much more reasonable with applications because they do not want planning by appeal and the risk of unplanned and poor-quality developments. This does not appear to work in urban brownfield areas, where, as I outlined earlier, high upfront costs and the complexity of development militate against challenging planning decisions, with developers often taking the easier route of seeking greenfield development opportunities elsewhere.

If we are to get more brownfield development, the balance between brownfield and greenfield needs to be tilted more in favour of brownfield. That is why the previous Conservative Government proposed a strong material presumption in favour of development on brownfield land. The purpose of this amendment is to oblige planning authorities to look at brownfield first, to recognise the potential additional costs and timescales of brownfield development and, through the strategic spatial plan, to seek to address them. With greater certainty and speed in the planning process, we will get the homes that this country needs with more on brownfield, helping urban regeneration and protecting greenfield sites. While the Minister may say that this is already in guidance, that has been the case for many years and it is simply not delivering. It needs to be stepped up; it needs to be in legislation.

I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, reflect a shared concern that strategic planning powers must be accompanied by safeguards, transparency and engagement with local communities. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, would extend this to national parks in a similar vein. My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 131 relates to a chief planner. We believe it has considerable merit, and I have heard similar from both the industry and the planning profession, as he outlined. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering rightly raised again the issue of flooding and the role and benefits of SUDS. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response on all these issues and, in particular, on whether this Government are prepared to take the necessary step of legislating for brownfield development.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Best]

133: Schedule 18, page 216, line 30, at end insert—
“Support for Mayoral Development Corporations
4A (1) Section 198 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) The Secretary of State may—(a) provide financial assistance for the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations;(b) provide financial assistance for the acquisition of land or property by Mayoral Development Corporations;(c) provide guidance to Mayoral Development Corporations on any aspect of governance, land acquisition, development and regeneration, and ongoing management.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 133, which has the heading

“Support for Mayoral Development Corporations”.

The amendment concerns the measures in Part 2 of the Bill that will facilitate strategic authorities establishing mayoral development corporations and development corporations of combined authorities, including combined county authorities. These development corporations can take on planning powers and land acquisition and development powers.

I believe that these development corporations could create the real alternative that we need to the current reliance of government on a small number of volume housebuilders, on which we all depend for the delivery of most of the 1.5 million homes planned for this Parliament. The hope is that these developers will plan, design and construct the majority of new housing development, achieving high housing standards and a good quantum of affordable accommodation for local communities. But these companies have often failed to achieve the speed or quality of development, let alone to include a fair proportion of affordable homes.

An alternative is badly needed and the development corporations could be that alternative. Development corporations can trace their origins to the establishment of planning and development bodies for the pre-war garden cities and then for the post-war new towns. The London Docklands Development Corporation utterly transformed that part of east London and, more recently, the London Legacy Development Corporation —the LLDC—has been doing great work in the redevelopment of the 2012 Olympic Games site and its environs.

The excellent 2018 Letwin review recommended ending our dependency on the oligopoly of developers that, entirely predictably, work at their own pace and negotiate down the standards and quotas of affordable housing to maximise their profits. In their place, Letwin advocated the establishment of development corporations that would acquire the land and capture the increase in its value when planning consent was subsequently granted. The corporation’s master plan can then parcel out the site to different profit-making and non-profit-making bodies, incorporating a mix of house types, green space, play areas and a mix of providers—housing associations, SME builders, specialist players et cetera. Development corporations will be the chosen vehicle for the delivery—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, development corporations will be the chosen vehicle for the delivery of the new generation of new towns. I was delighted to hear today the Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook, announcing a consultation on the details of creating a development corporation for greater Cambridge. This model can be used far more widely, for other developments and area regeneration as well. But my worry is that this does not happen elsewhere, that new development corporations do not appear and that this part of the Bill—unless amended by Amendment 133—turns out to be a damp squib. Mayors and combined authorities have other important matters to handle and may fail to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the Bill to create the development corporations that really can achieve more and better new homes and communities.

Amendment 133 is intended to enable government to engage with the strategic authorities to incentivise and support the setting up of development corporations and sometimes to provide them with financial assistance, perhaps via Homes England, as well as ongoing advice on their governance, on land acquisition—including through compulsory purchase—on the creation of the masterplan and on the subsequent oversight of the management of the new development. The measures in this amendment could help to radically change the way housing and infrastructure are currently delivered. Publicly accountable bodies empowered to work for the common good could dramatically improve the speed of build-out, ensure more affordable homes and achieve the benefits of great place-making for the communities destined to live there.

Amendments 240 and 242 in my name have been grouped with my amendment on development corporations. These two additional amendments would insert a new clause with the heading

“Duty to optimise the use of public land”.

The amendments attempt to ensure that the precious asset of land owned by local authorities, including strategic authorities and development corporations, is put to best—“optimal”—use. The amendments seek to resolve long-standing complexities and arguments over the treatment of land holdings by public bodies. I pay tribute to the land economist, Stephen Hill, supported by leading real estate experts and a large number of public interest institutions, for his help in preparing these two amendments.

The amendments address the barrier of land prices being too high to allow for new developments to embrace important social purposes. The amendments would bring down the value of land by requiring public bodies to make available their own land holdings and redundant buildings on terms that make possible their best use. They would have to follow the 2018 principle of law set out by Mr Justice Holgate, which holds that true market value must reflect compliance with public policy. So this amendment would ensure that the market value of land must take account of the cost of abiding by the obligations both set out in the local plan and contained in central government’s requirements. Local authorities would have a duty to create a land use management plan for sites in their ownership to ensure that developments are ultimately for the public good.

Since the duty to optimise the use of public land would very often be of relevance when it is planned to dispose of land to others, the amendment also provides clarification on the meaning of the phrase “best consideration reasonably obtainable”, which governs the sale of publicly owned land at present. Public bodies believe that this means that they must accept the highest price offered, irrespective of the effects of this on their local community. Taking this line can prevent efforts to improve the quality of life for local citizens for generations to come.

I will illustrate this by reference to negotiations in which I was involved to acquire a redundant hospital building for an extra care housing development for older people. This use of the old building and surrounding land would provide a service that meant substantial annual savings for the NHS and care services as a result of the housing with care provision. But the NHS trust was adamant that the sale must be to the highest bidder—in this case to a developer of luxury flats, principally for overseas buyers, forfeiting the gains to the community in return for a short-term financial receipt.

--- Later in debate ---

The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 also introduced a new duty on all development corporations to have regard to sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation, which would support the broader assessment that the noble Lord is seeking beyond best value alone. It is right that local authorities and development corporations should be able to determine the most important objectives in their area and pursue them flexibly. This duty would restrict flexibility in the objectives they pursue and how they use land to achieve them. As drafted, the amendment would require local authorities and development corporations to weigh the balance of a number of planning and environmental policies. I am therefore also concerned by the potential for additional legal risk on local authorities and development corporations which dispose of land if other organisations disagree with their decision. This risk could paralyse decision-making, and on that basis, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Best (CB)]

I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is as experienced as anybody in this field and my noble friend Lord Mawson brings community-based experience as well. They are heavyweights in support of my amendments, and I am most grateful for that. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for not only supporting the amendment on mayoral development corporations but for his amendment on the optimum use of land.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, who rightly pointed to the role that councils must play within a development corporation set up by a mayoralty or a strategic authority of any kind. Local authorities must continue to play their part within that. He asked some important questions which I am not sure we have had very full answers to from the Minister. He basically said that central government has the power to support local initiatives and local development corporations and has strategic funds available to those mayoralties that could be used to promote new development corporations. My problem is that in a lot of cases, this will not be a priority. It will be something put to one side. Some incentive is needed to unlock that opportunity for the mayors and the strategic bodies, something that enables priority to be given to this way of producing homes that will end our dependence on that oligopoly of volume housebuilders and bring in a new way of doing things.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported these two amendments, and we live to fight another day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 133 withdrawn.