New Towns: Laying the Foundations (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Built Environment Committee New Towns: Laying the Foundations (2nd Report, HL Paper 183, Session 2024–26).

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, before I begin, I say some words of thanks. First, I thank the 88 organisations and individuals who submitted written evidence, alongside the witnesses who appeared before the committee over 11 sessions. Secondly, I thank the team backstage: our excellent specialist adviser, Kelvin MacDonald; and the committee staff, comprising Dervish Mertcan, Emily Macpherson-Smith, Charlie Warner and Nick Boorer, who all kept the show on the road with exemplary calm. My thanks also go to our embassy staff and all those who hosted us in Copenhagen. I express my genuine and personal thanks to the Minister, her team and those in the department, who have shown deep respect to not only me but the committee and helped us on this issue and others.

Finally, and not least, I thank my colleagues on the committee, some of whom are here, not only for the invaluable support they have given me and the committee but for the fact that they have tolerated me throughout that period. They have steered us to what is, I think, a brilliant final report. I thank, if I may, Viscounts Hanworth and Younger. Their voices are missed in the committee and in this debate—particularly, for me, Viscount Younger, who was always incredibly supportive.

This is the committee’s first report of three—everyone will be delighted to know that—on new towns. Given the scale and ambition required to deliver new towns, we chose to split the inquiry into a series of modules. This has enabled us to take a more targeted and granular look at discrete elements of the overall programme, rather than trying to cram everything into a single tome. Since this first report was published in October last year, we have published our second report, on creating communities. Today, I will focus my remarks on the first report, but, worry not, at a future date we will talk about creating thriving communities. It is worth noting that our committee chose not to look at or comment on specific locations which the Government were already doing when we started our inquiry.

The report was produced by Members who looked carefully at the evidence and arrived at the same broad conclusion: this programme has huge potential but only if it is done properly. We approached the inquiry as a critical friend of the Government’s programme. We want it to succeed; indeed, that is precisely why we think it is our duty to say plainly where it is not yet on track. We would be failing in our duty to the Government and our fellow citizens if we did not hold the Government’s feet to the fire.

This is, after all, not the first time this country has set out to build new communities at scale. It is the latest chapter in a story that stretches back more than a century. The post-war new towns were, by any sensible measure, a considerable success, as the Minister can testify. They housed millions, opened up opportunity and showed what the Government could do when they combined ambition with organisation. But a good many attempts since then have been less glorious. Some never got properly off the drawing board, some delivered housing but not places, and some lacked warmth and coherence. This really is an opportunity to get it right this time.

The test of the Government on this agenda will be the towns they actually build and whether these are places in which people can live well, get around easily, find work, raise families and feel they belong. That is why the first report is about the foundations. Foundations are not the most glamorous, but they are crucial. I will start with the positives, as there are things that the Government have done in getting the ball rolling that deserve real credit.

The first is development corporations. We recommended that they should be the default delivery mechanism for new towns and large-scale settlements, and the Government have broadly agreed. They matter because they work. They are tried, tested and credible. They can assemble land, plan at scale and keep a steady hand on the tiller.

Secondly, some of the necessary legislative plumbing is now in place. The Government have moved beyond aspiration and into action. Crucially, compulsory purchase reform now includes the ability to remove hope value in the right circumstances. I know that this can be controversial, but it matters because if land values rise steeply on the expectation of future development, it becomes much harder to fund affordable housing, infrastructure and community benefit.

Thirdly, the wider devolution framework is moving towards powers for mayors and more tools to support infrastructure and regeneration. If these new towns are to succeed, they need to be tied into transport, economic strategy and local leadership. New towns simply cannot be dropped from the great administrative height of Whitehall and expected to land elegantly.

Fourthly, there has been welcome movement on patient capital. The National Housing Bank is a serious development. If this programme is to work, it needs long-term money that understands long-term returns.

Fifthly, the Government have established a new towns unit—a single front door to government—moving from broad intent to an actual process of consultation, assessment and site development.

So let me be clear: this is not a picture of total inertia. Quite a lot has happened and the Government should take credit for it. However, despite that progress there are still some serious gaps. We are two years on and the clock is ticking.

The first area is vision. We said in our report that the Government needed to retake control of the narrative. At the moment, I am not persuaded that the Government have yet supplied that vision in their own voice. Too much of the story still seems to be borrowed from the taskforce. People need to hear clearly and repeatedly what this is for. Is it about giving young families a realistic chance of a home? Is it about healthier places? Is it about joining up housing, growth and infrastructure? Is it about building communities that are greener, better connected and more affordable? Is it about creating and supporting tech centres?

Whatever the goal, whatever the mission, the Government should say so plainly, confidently and often. This should and can be a great national endeavour. It should be exciting, positive and upbeat and should be something we are proud of doing and talking about.

The second area is governance—or, as I say, “grip”. This is the gap that worries me the most, because until the Government get a real grip of the programme and own it, we are not convinced that it will ever happen. These are not five-year projects. They are not even 10-year projects. They are multi-decade undertakings.

We recommend two things: a genuinely independent central body to oversee the programme and proper cross-government leadership of sufficient seniority to hold it together over time. What we have instead is a unit within one department. I am sure that unit is useful, but a unit is not a commission, and it is certainly not a substitute for Cabinet-level leadership.

These are 60-year projects, yet at present they seem to rest heavily on the energy and commitment of a single Minister who has new towns listed as one of his 12 ministerial responsibilities. Admirable though that may be, and even with the support, dedication and passion of our own Minister, and others, to me it just does not feel enough. The vast scale of the task at hand means that it needs to be driven day in, day out, so that someone can bang the table—ideally, the Cabinet table.

Ultimately, this scheme requires the Treasury to play ball. It needs round-the-clock grip, not just to handle Whitehall but to engage local authorities and encourage the private sector and investment to help unblock issues that may arise. Our conclusion on this was blunt—because the evidence justified that bluntness —that without sustained government management and support, there is a strong likelihood of failure.

Thirdly, there is a question of the government ownership stake. We recommend that the Government should retain a small but effective ownership stake in each development corporation, because the evidence suggested that even a modest state stake could improve investor confidence and unlock cheaper longer-term borrowing. We saw this in Copenhagen—its model is not transferable in every detail, of course, but the principle was clear enough: a small public stake can create a great deal of confidence. So we appeal again, because it seems to be one of those rare policy levers that costs relatively little and achieves rather a lot in return.

The fourth is skills. We recommended that the abolition of level 7 apprenticeships for those over 21 be reversed, at least for the professions in the built and natural environment. It makes no sense to announce an ambitious programme such as this—not to mention the 1.5 million target—while quietly narrowing one of the routes into the professions needed to deliver it. Planners, surveyors, urban designers, environmental specialists and the many others on whom good development depends—we cannot just magic these people up overnight. They need training, routes in, and institutional support. The professional concern here is serious. Just when everyone agrees that the system needs more capacity, we are making it even harder for people to enter some of the very professions on which success depends.

Fifthly, there is money. Our committee asked for clarity on the financing mechanism. The Government have pointed to existing programmes, and those are welcome as far as they go; but existing programmes are not the same thing as a transparent, dedicated funding model designed around the realities of new towns: high up-front infrastructure costs, long time horizons, patient returns, land value capture, and proper stewardship. I am afraid too many of the answers in the government response amounted, in effect, to: “We will say more in the spring”. I think we have passed spring, so here is the chance.

There is one final point I want to make, because it goes to legitimacy. We said that the framework for community engagement should be set before sites were announced. That was not procedural fussiness. It was an acknowledgment of the obvious truth that people are more likely to trust a process if they believe they are part of it before the broad shape of events has already been settled. If people feel that consultation begins only once the machinery is already humming in the background, suspicion will grow; and once suspicion takes root, delivery gets slower, not faster.

I end with four requests of the Minister. First, is the Minister able to give the House a firm date for the full government response now that this consultation is over? Secondly, will the Government commit to leadership with genuine and real cross-government authority? Thirdly, will they reconsider the case for a small government ownership stake in each development corporation? Fourthly, will they, even at this stage, exempt the built and natural environment professions from the changes to level 7 apprenticeship funding?

We remain a critical friend of this programme. Get the vision right, the governance right, the skills right and the money right, and this generation of new towns could stand in comparison with the great achievements of the post-war era. Get them wrong, and we will not have built a new generation of communities at all. We will simply have extended a long and, alas, increasingly British tradition of promising much, consulting often and delivering less. We can do it.

I thank the Minister and all those who will take part in this debate, including my fellow committee members, and I look forward to all their contributions. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I know the hour is late, so I will not respond to all the points that have been made, but it has been a fascinating and energising discussion from across the political divide. I am grateful to the Minister for some of the additional information that the Government have given us. We are not quite there yet, but let us see what later in the year delivers us.

The Minister knows all too well that I am a fan of hers—I genuinely am—but in this debate, I feel that we are missing an opportunity. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who used the words “commanding leadership”. We all know that life is short and political life is even shorter—my own experience in No. 10 can testify to that. Governing is not easy. Even things that should be simple and quick are not. I feel that we are slightly taking our foot off the pedal here. For example, we keep hearing—the Minister said it again—references to the Cabinet committee. My own experience of Cabinet committees, great as they are, is that they are slightly reactive and not proactive. That is a slight concern that we have.

We have used the language of being a “critical friend”, and we remain so. In today’s debate we have heard about energy, keenness, leadership, passion, urgency, boldness, decisiveness, passion and urgency from my noble friend Lord Redwood in a brilliant speech. The clock is ticking but, as I said, we can do it.

In responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, the Minister said that something was music to her ears. I want to give her an example. This morning, I dropped my kids off and it was a bit fraught, we were all running behind, my wife was at work, and I was thinking, “I’ve got this debate”. I dropped the kids off, jumped in the car and the music blasting out was from that well-known architect and urban planner, Elvis Presley. The lyrics of the song—and I end with this—were:

“A little less conversation, a little more action, please”.

Motion agreed.