Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is customary on these occasions, I advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which is highly likely, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. I also advise the Grand Committee, after consultation with the Clerk of the Parliaments, and as eagled-eyed Members of the Grand Committee will have spotted, that Schedule 18 is misprinted on the first page of the Marshalled List. It curiously appears at the top of the second page, where it has no business to be. It will come after Clause 37, just in case anybody is confused on that.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Wednesday 4th February 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-V(b) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (4 Feb 2026)
Baroness Pinnock
“(2) Notwithstanding any powers conferred under this section or Schedule 16, the Mayor of a Combined County Authority may exercise strategic planning powers only where the constituent local authorities have been consulted and, within limits prescribed by regulations, have the power to approve or veto such decisions.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that constituent local authorities have a consultative and limited veto role over strategic planning powers, with any regulations setting those limits made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, it is really good to be able to take part in the debate on the devolution Bill, particularly to speak to Amendments 126 and 127 in my name. These amendments seek to explore the depth of the devolution that we have been promised in the Bill, which is, after all, called the English devolution Bill. For us Liberal Democrats on these Benches, devolution involves enabling—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but would she prefer to sit when speaking?
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.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Having broken my ankle before, I feel her pain. I will speak to Amendments 132 and 222B in this group and, if time permits, Amendment 241E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.
The Minister will be aware of my interest in SUDS. What I am seeking to do here is align her department with Defra, because Defra is much keener than her department is on bringing in mandatory standards for sustainable drainage. I hope that we can bring them closer together so that they speak with one voice.
The importance of SUDS as a natural containment of water is twofold, but it is primarily to prevent flooding and to prevent floodwater from being displaced. For example, if as few as 30 or 60 houses have been built on a waterlogged field—it does not need to be a major development of 300 houses—it can displace the water into existing developments. I saw this when I was the MP for Filey, for my last five years in the other place. Flooding of sewage was caused when rainwater mixed with the additional sewage into the combined sewer. It went onto the highway, meant that households, including some pensioner households living in bungalows, had to be evicted for six months and caused £1 million of damage to Filey School.
I know that the noble Baroness will reply by saying that the Government published guidance in June 2025 and that SUDS is part of the National Planning Policy Framework, to which I would say, even more firmly than before, that these are, regrettably, not mandatory. Since my earlier attempts to put SUDS on a statutory basis during the passage of the levelling up Bill and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, there has been a court case, which I will come on to now.
With this amendment, I am seeking to ask the noble Baroness to conduct sustainable drainage assessments relating to planning applications by strategic authorities, before those applications are approved. The assessment
“must include consideration of whether existing public sewerage systems have capacity to support proposed developments in planning applications.”
I refer to the excellent report by the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place, Flood Resilience in England, which was published last year. It makes two references to SUDS, one in particular. I quote its paragraph 48:
“We heard that the Flood Risk Management Strategy requires Lead Local Flood Authorities to maintain a register of flood risk assets, but that implementation is inconsistent and that many assets, especially SuDS and nature-based features are not captured”.
That was the initial background to this. It also emphatically recommended, in its conclusions in paragraphs 30 and 31, that more needs to be done on the whole issue of surface water.
I part company with the Minister in that I believe the guidelines need to be mandatory, we need a legal basis and we need to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, because of the ruling last month in the case of Gladman Developments Limited v the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Lancaster City Council. This is important and has caused much concern among practitioners, in particular the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, with which I did some interesting work on bioresources, removing the solids out of sewage and making money out of that, but that is for another day.
CIWEM is deeply concerned because this case set aside the sequential test. I quote from its letter, which I will make available to Hansard. The court judgment
“has a large impact on Planning, not just the Sequential Test which is worrying but also the status of SuDS in development. At the original appeal the inspector dismissed the application as A sequential Test was not carried out but required. The applicant then went to the High Court, contending that the inspector has erred in law, by treating the NPPF as establishing a requirement that planning permission must be refused in every case where the sequential test had not been undertaken… The court agreed and quashed the decision, finding that this is one matter that needs to be weighed up against the other factors and not a sole reason to refuse an application. The scheme was for 64 new homes in Lancaster”.
In the view of CIWEM and others:
“This not only weakens Flood Risk Policy but also the implication that weakens the stance that if a development does not include SuDS is this a strong enough reason in the planning balance to refuse an application on its own”.
That court case has driven a coach and horses through government policy, and I would argue most vigorously that we need to have a mandatory basis and set aside these voluntary guidelines. We need to have one mandatory standard respected by all planning authorities the length and breadth of the country—otherwise we are not doing our duty to householders to have a safe residence, free from the prospect of flooding and, in particular, free from sewage coming into their homes.
I turn now to Amendment 222B. I spoke in the clean energy Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has just taken his place, was an excellent Minister. He has now been replaced by another excellent Minister. I was staggered by the way in which these battery energy storage systems were criss-crossing north Yorkshire and the rest of rural England and causing complete havoc. We do not yet know what additional resources are being given to the fire and rescue services, but we know that they are not statutory consultees to these developments. We had a major wildfire—and there were 196 wildfires in England last year, which takes an enormous amount of resources in terms of water and the fire and rescue services. The wildfire came perilously close to burning down farms and residences, and it also imperilled livestock.
The thinking behind Amendment 222B is to ensure that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees going forward. My main concern is that, for example, in my former constituency, the village of Scotton, which is very important to me, because my niece lives in Lingerfield, one of the villages next door to it, is going to have two of these large battery storage plants, and for good measure, one of the largest solar farms in the country is next door to it. There is another one elsewhere in what was my constituency, in South Kilvington, also perilously close to a school. If both those units were to go on fire at the same time, as well as there being a wildfire in a different part of north Yorkshire, what resources are there? To make sure that that is considered at the time of a planning application, I am asking that there be a duty to consult fire and rescue services and that they be statutory consultees.
Briefly, I bumped into the chief executive of the North York Moors National Park, who briefed me on the earlier amendment on national parks and strategic planning. I put on record that it goes the extra mile to ensure that it consults with every single body, including other planning authorities such as North Yorkshire Council and others, including NGOs, to make sure that any planning application on its land is fully considered.
With those few remarks, I hope that the Minister will finally agree to a mandatory duty for SUDS, and also that fire and rescue services will be statutory consultees.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 241E is in my name. I hope that it does not need much introduction, because it pretty much does what it says on the tin. Where a spatial development strategy involves a national park, the national park authority should be involved in the development of the strategy. That sounds so much like a no-brainer that I would not be surprised if the Minister tells me that it is in the Bill already, but my understanding is that, without this amendment, although the national park authorities need to be consulted before a strategy is submitted, they do not need to be consulted while it is being developed in the first place.
This may come from the thinking that a national park is a big, empty wilderness just for nature, but the South Downs National Park and New Forest National Park are places where nearly 500,000 live, and even more work, and cover around 10% of the land in England and Wales, including key bits of national infrastructure, such as roads and energy projects. It seems clear that working with the national park authority is the best way in which to plan a spatial development strategy within or affecting a national park. The relevant national park authority has experience and expertise about so many aspects crucial to an SDS—infrastructure and planning, the rural economy, the tourist economy, opportunities for nature recovery and climate targets—so excluding it seems to set things up for failure. This amendment aims to give national park authorities a statutory role during the planning of an SDS in a really simple way, and I very much hope that the Minister agrees with its sentiments, at least, and will consider tabling a government amendment along these lines.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this is a very interesting group of amendments. I look forward to the responses of the Minister to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who made quite a number of important points, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon.
I just want to say something in relation to Amendment 131 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others, including myself. I do not want to repeat what he has said—indeed, in debates on previous Bills we have had long discussions on the issue of chief planning officers—but I hope that the Minister will take this very seriously. Let me explain a further reason why I think Ministers need to do that.
There are several areas of competence in the Bill for mayors. Four of them require planning advice. One is transport and local infrastructure, a second is housing and strategic planning, a third is economic development and regeneration and a fourth is environment and climate change. Each of those will have either an elected member or a commissioner leading, as it were—I will not say “in charge”, because commissioners have to report to the mayor, and the strategic authority would be making the relevant decisions.
The point is that in any one person, to have the professional capacity in each of those four areas of competence that I have identified, you have to have professional expertise. I do not see in either the Bill or the Explanatory Notes exactly how that is going to be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an unanswerable case for there being a chief planning officer who brings all these things together within a local planning authority and within the strategic authority. No doubt we will come back to this on Report, but I hope that the Government understand its importance. If you are trying to drive growth, you have to have professional expertise in place to do it and I suggest that chief planning officers are one of those positions.
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.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling Amendment 132. Local planning authorities already carry out flood assessments as part of their duties, just as with conservation assessments, tree assessments or bat assessments. Flooding is already part of the routine of planning authorities’ assessments. SUDS are constantly being put in. The number of SUDS is constantly changing, and I fear that a statutory duty would cost money that could be put to better use. A local authority is best placed to assess which flooding remediation is best for an area. We have to remember that regional flooding bodies also review flooding in catchment areas as part of their duties. I fear that this amendment would cause duplication and put an excess financial burden on local authorities and the Government.
Regarding Amendment 241E, I would have thought that the national parks were protected land in a similar way to metropolitan open land, which is highly protected. As it is part of a planning authority’s duties, it should consult with all relevant parties already.
I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward Amendment 130, but I believe it would delay the building of the homes that, as he eloquently said, we desperately need across the country. Planning authorities can look only at developments that come before them; they cannot force a developer to bring an application for brownfield land, or any land. They can judge only the applications that come before them. I fear that this amendment would cause delay in delivering the houses that we so desperately need in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I also welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is very nice to see her back in her place, and I hope her leg is recovering speedily.
I thank noble Lords for these amendments relating to planning and housing. I understand the spirit of Amendment 126, which seeks to restrict the use of strategic planning powers. It is important that the right checks and balances are in place in the governance of strategic authorities. However, we believe that the Bill already puts the right procedures in place. Combined authorities and combined county authorities already have to make decisions collectively. Constituent councils each have at least one voting member and, thanks to Clause 6, decisions will require a majority to be taken forward.
Even then, there are some circumstances where we go further. For example, mayors and their authorities must consult the relevant constituent councils and local planning authorities before using compulsory purchase powers in their area. Non-mayoral strategic authorities cannot acquire land in this way without consent. I can assure the noble Baroness that when a mayor exercises their powers on mayoral development orders, there will be consultation with local communities and local planning authorities. That will be set out in secondary legislation.
Where the mayor exercises strategic planning functions directly, there are appropriate checks and balances. For example, the mayor’s spatial development strategy cannot be adopted until the combined authority or combined county authority has passed a motion to do so. I thank my noble friend Lady Shah for sharing her experience of the planning process. Introducing a requirement that every use of a strategic planning power requires the consent of every constituent council would be excessive and fetter the ability of strategic authorities and their mayors to make strategic decisions for the benefit of their whole area.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for Amendment 127. We have often had discussions about parish and town councils, and I know how strongly she feels about them. Schedules 16 and 17 already place requirements on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils and local planning authorities, such as national park authorities, before seeking to use compulsory purchase powers on land in their area. The types of organisations they must consult or get the consent of are the same as those from which existing strategic authorities already must seek consent. Extending these requirements to parish councils would, I believe, take this too far. There are over 10,000 parish councils in England.
This amendment as written would give parish councils the ability to veto compulsory acquisitions of land. It cannot be right for a parish council to unilaterally block a strategic purchase by a strategic authority—on which all the constituent councils have agreed—that may have benefits beyond that parish. While it is of course right that strategic authorities consider the views of local communities, including parish councils, in their decisions, individual parish councils should not be able to block those decisions.
I turn to Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, which seeks to require mayors, combined authorities and combined county authorities to prioritise brownfield over greenfield land when they designate land for development. Once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those with mayors, will have a duty to produce a spatial development strategy. Spatial development strategies will guide local plans in their area; identify broad locations for development and key infrastructure requirements; and set housing targets for local authorities. They will not themselves allocate specific parcels of land for development. When preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their strategy is consistent with national policy.
The promotion and reuse of brownfield land is a central part of the current National Planning Policy Framework. Authorities are expected to give substantial weight to the benefits of using suitable brownfield land within existing settlements to maximise density. The framework particularly emphasises the importance of appropriate uses in town centres, although, of course, it will not be appropriate in all cases for development to be situated on previously developed land and town centres.
We aim to go even further to cement this approach in the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, on which we are currently consulting. New policies on development inside and outside of development boundaries promote a sustainable pattern of development by steering proposals to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable land in urban areas and taking a more selective approach to the types and locations of development outside settlements. Mayors will also be able to grant upfront planning permission for specific types of development on specific sites through mayoral development orders. We want to ensure that the legislation is flexible enough to allow mayors to use these orders for a range of different uses across different types of land, reflecting the mayor’s plans to support the growth of their area.
Paragraph 125 of the current National Planning Policy Framework states:
“Planning policies and decisions should … give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs”.
Following the revision in December 2024, this paragraph has been strengthened further. It now states that proposals for such brownfield sites
“should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused”.
It is of course right that we promote the effective use of previously developed land, but we should avoid creating overly inflexible legal requirements that may not work in every situation and would serve only to inhibit the growth that this country needs; my noble friend Lady Dacres referred to these issues. Although I appreciate the intent behind this amendment, I do not think that it is necessary or proportionate.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. The key issue here is the one to which I referred. We have had guidance for many years. I appreciate that there is potentially to be some mild strengthening of that guidance but the fact is that it is not working, as I illustrated with the very low number of houses that are being built in the large urban area of London. We therefore need to step up. This is not about preventing development elsewhere or slowing development down. This is a strategic plan. It is about facilitating development and putting a greater onus on mayors to find brownfield land because we know that, as we have illustrated, it is more difficult to develop on brownfield land, whether or not it is contaminated. This is not a slowing mechanism but a mechanism that will create more sites and get more development done—and with more of it being in urban and brownfield areas, protecting some of our greenfield land. It is not about slowing; it is actually about the reverse.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand what the noble Lord says. I do not have the statistics in front of me but I have visited a number of very good brownfield sites in London. The issue of building on brownfield is not the only issue preventing building in London; there are viability issues that are quite unrelated to that. I accept that viability can be an issue on brownfield land. Indeed, we are very much taking into account some of the issues around viability in the new packages that we are developing with London in order to encourage London boroughs and the Mayor of London to think about how we can work further to deliver against the housing demand in London.
This is a key issue, but it is not as simple as a lack of use of brownfield sites. Nearly all the housing sites that I have visited right across the country have been, to one extent or another, developments on brownfield sites. That is the right way to go. We will of course continue to monitor this, but I do not want to create an inflexible requirement that will mean that people who are in a situation where they cannot use brownfield sites cannot develop anything. We must be very careful about this, but I understand the points being made.
I turn to Amendment 131. I am glad to see that the House of Lords is taking our environmental responsibilities very seriously, because we have a number of amendments to this Bill that have been recycled from the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, of which Amendment 131 is an early contender. However, I appreciate that this amendment is slightly different in that it relates specifically to strategic development strategies. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. His amendment seeks to make it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities, either separately or jointly, to appoint a suitably qualified chief planning officer. I absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment. As we discussed during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I share the view that it is very important for planners to have a presence within the leadership structures of local authorities. As I have said previously, it is our mission to try and make sure that we highlight the role and importance of planning for all local authorities, whichever level of planning they are operating at.
However, I do not believe that this is an issue that should be addressed through legislation at this stage. The Government consider it essential that each authority should retain the flexibility to determine the most effective way to organise its own planning functions, particularly because, in England, they vary widely in scale and nature. In practice, many already operate with a chief planner, as I think the noble Lord said, or the equivalent senior role, although what that role entails varies widely between, for example, a county authority focused mainly on minerals and waste, a small district council and a large London borough.
As I promised to do during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I will continue to keep this matter under review as we take forward further reforms to the planning system. This is something that I am happy to explore further with local authorities and the sector as part of that work. I will aim to expedite that work, but it would not be appropriate to introduce this into legislation without doing that first. I therefore want to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 132, which would require strategic authorities to prepare sustainable drainage assessments. I admire her persistence on the issue of sustainable drainage systems; she has a great deal of knowledge on this that I greatly appreciate her bringing to planning matters. I reassure her that the Government are committed to taking a systemic approach to tackling drainage issues and , in particular, improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. Through this Bill, we are giving mayors of strategic authorities outside London the ability to call in planning applications of potential strategic importance. Where a planning application is called in, the mayor must consider the application in accordance with the development plan for the area and national planning policy.
In December 2024, we revised the National Planning Policy Framework to require all developments that may have drainage impacts to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. We are proposing to go further through the current consultation on the new framework, which proposes that all sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with new national standards introduced by the Government last year. The consultation also includes proposals for clearer engagement between plan-making authorities and wastewater companies when plans are being made, taking into account the impacts of planned growth. This is to provide a clearer understanding of capacity and any additional infrastructure needs.
Against this background, I am concerned that the noble Baroness’s amendment would impose a burden on strategic authorities without being effective. Mayors of strategic authorities will deal with only a small number of planning applications themselves, so it would be disproportionate to expect them to produce a statutory drainage assessment, which would likely be very partial, as they would not be able to look holistically at all potential development coming forward in their area. Nor should this amendment be necessary, given the steps that we are taking to improve the assessment of drainage needs and the delivery of sustainable drainage systems and the clear requirement for drainage matters to be addressed when individual development proposals are being considered.
I will take back the issue that the noble Baroness raised on the specific legal case. That is as a relatively new court decision, so I am sure that the MHCLG team are reviewing any impact on the Bill. I will respond in writing to her and other Members of the Committee on that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The Minister said that the judgment was on 15 January. If she and her department consider that their policy is being set aside by very clever planning barristers, would she perhaps bring forward an amendment from the department that would be much better worded than my humble effort in this regard? It is completely inappropriate for the sequential test to be set aside in the way that it has been, and it is contrary to what she is trying to do in her department.
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.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this has been quite a long debate on a number of issues regarding strategic planning and its consequences.
Amendment 126 in particular referred to the new strategic powers that mayors—not just combined county authority mayors but existing metro mayors—will acquire and how those will knit with local plans. Perhaps I should have said at the beginning that I am a councillor currently serving on a large met authority in Yorkshire. It is clear to me that greater thought must be given to how strategic plans by the mayor and local plans by the local authority will work together and not come into conflict. Those who come from the London experience do not understand, perhaps, that the new mayoral authorities will not have the equivalent of a London Assembly where these things can be debated. They will consist of the leaders of the constituent authorities in West Yorkshire, which is five people. If that is deemed sufficient, it is not devolution.
I thank the Minister for her reply, which, as always, went into substantial detail on the probing questions that were asked; I am sure that some of them will be asked again when we get to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“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—
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.
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.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. I support all three of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The contributions so far have been very helpful; I hope that the Minister will take due notice of them.
I particularly support the optimal use of land. Amendment 240 talks about placing
“a statutory duty on English local authorities and all forms of development corporation, to secure the optimal uses of their land, including when disposing of it, to achieve public policy objectives and requirements”.
This really matters. It is fundamental to achieving the housing growth objective that the Government have set themselves. I very much hope that the Minister will be very positive when she replies; if not, and if the noble Lord, Lord Best, wants to return to this issue on Report, he will have our support in so doing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has raised with these three amendments.
First, Amendment 133
“would enable the Secretary of State to support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations”.
Noble Lords have already outlined why development corporations are a good idea, so I will not repeat that. The one thing I will say is that, in getting things done quickly, there may be some issues with the wording; there is still a role for local councils, too, and we want to make sure that they are not forgotten.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, how will the Bill directly strengthen the role of development corporations, both improving their effectiveness and ensuring that they are readily used to support strategic plan-making? Secondly, do the Government believe that the powers currently available to development corporations are sufficient to meet their ambitions on large-scale housing development and regeneration in mayoral areas? Finally, do the Government see development corporations as a central delivery vehicle for the future mayoral growth strategy? If so, why is that intent not reflected more clearly in the Bill?
If I understand them correctly, Amendments 240 and 242 are similar in effect, but one applies to public land and one to local authority land. They aim to secure the optimal use of public land,
“including when disposing of it”,
in pursuit of wider policy objectives. The intent behind these amendments is plainly sound. Numerous Governments have sought over the years to ensure that public land is used strategically, transparently and in a way that supports the long-term social and economic outcomes we all desire. The Government may have some issues with the drafting—in particular, taking into account whole council objectives, not just the specific objectives mentioned—but I hope that, in that spirit, they will reflect carefully on whether the Bill, as currently drafted, goes far enough to meet these ambitions, as well as whether there is scope for the legislation to do more to embed those principles in practice.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his keen interest in and support for the Government’s intentions on mayoral development corporations. I can announce that earlier today, Minister Pennycook announced a consultation on a development corporation for Greater Cambridgeshire.
I begin with Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Clause 37 and Schedule 18 extend the ability to establish mayoral development corporations to all mayoral strategic authorities. They are powerful delivery vehicles that let mayors bring together private and public sector expertise to tackle strategic spatial challenges in their area. However, it remains the decision of each mayoral strategic authority as to whether a mayoral development corporation is the right vehicle in its area and for each challenge.
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.
“(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and(e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that local growth plans explicitly take account of the statutory health duty and the proposed Health Inequalities Strategy. It strengthens the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the government’s intention that devolution should support inclusive growth and stronger communities, while maintaining local flexibility.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 140 would strengthen the link between economic growth and health improvement, complementing the Government’s intention for devolution to support inclusive growth in stronger communities while maintaining local flexibility.
Devolution should give local leaders the tools to make a tangible difference to the lives of their citizens. However, if poor health and widening health inequalities continue to constrain economic participation and the effectiveness of public services, and if local growth plans are not used to drive better health, devolved leaders will fail to deliver real change to their communities. I believe that this Bill is a hugely significant moment for regional governance, with its explicit expectation that devolution should support improved outcomes, including health outcomes, for communities.
In many UK regions, long-term illness is now the single largest driver of economic inactivity. This can be seen most clearly in areas of historically high deprivation. The economic impact of poor health is stark. The Health Foundation’s independent Commission for Healthier Working Lives found that
“8.2 million working-age people report a long-term health condition that limits their ability to work … Poor workforce health is estimated to cost UK employers up to £150bn a year through lost productivity, sickness absence and recruitment costs”.
I warmly welcome the Government’s ambition to address regional economic inequality. Improving health and reducing inequalities are prerequisites for economic success. However, health currently remains largely absent from most local growth strategies, although not all. In the Oxfordshire strategic plan—the plan that I know best—health inequalities are a primary focus. The plan explicitly integrates social well-being with economic growth to address the county’s stark internal disparities. It pays specific attention to the foundational economy, which is to say the sectors providing basic goods and services, such as health and education, and identifies these as providential elements on which well-being depends.
Without considering health as a core objective and precondition for growth, local growth plans are less likely to be effective in delivering long-term sustainable growth. Some places in the UK are pioneering new approaches, including the West Midlands, which has implemented the inclusive growth framework. This aims to ensure that everyone benefits from growth by focusing on all types of investment, such as public, private, capital, revenue and time, which are all given attention. However, practice is uneven and lacks a consistent understanding of impact. This amendment aims to recognise the relationship between health and local growth so that further devolution reduces rather than widens inequalities.
I recognise that the number of co-operatives and mutuals is expanding and that the Government are calling for new growth plans across the mutual sector. That is very welcome—I am a Co-operative Member of the House of Lords. My amendment therefore dovetails with the current policy. It is right that local growth plans should promote co-operatives, mutuals and community wealth building—the practice of creating an inclusive and democratically owned economy. This puts people before private equity profits and champions the kind of economic development activity that gets overlooked by industrial strategies. Instead, it focuses on the everyday economy where most people work.
In Preston, for example, community wealth building is changing lives and has been linked to an incredible 9% increase in life satisfaction and an 11% rise in median wages. This has led to a reduction in daily antidepressant prescriptions of 1.3 units per person and a drop in depression prevalence compared to similar areas of 2.4 per thousand. I am sure that the Government would agree that these results should be replicated across the whole country.
I suggest that community wealth building is the missing piece of the puzzle to unlock growth for the benefit of all citizens, everywhere. Scotland already has a community wealth building Bill passing through its Parliament and I hope that this amendment ensures that England does not fall behind. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will take these things into account. Economic growth will be the lifeblood of mayoral combined authorities, but their ability to achieve that growth will be diminished if health and health inequalities are not an integral part of their plans. I beg to move.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 141B in my name. This amendment is designed to help address perceptions that economic growth and environmental growth are in competition with each other. Tony Juniper of Natural England said it as eloquently as anyone could:
“we need to ensure that Nature and the economy are partners rather than seen as choices. That means weaving Nature recovery into the growth planning up front—the cheapest point at which to invest in Nature, and the one that also yields the biggest returns”.
In essence, this amendment calls for the Secretary of State to publish a local authority guide to constructing a win-win: best practice in growing the natural economy as part of the growth plans, and how nature-based solutions and easy mitigations to protect wildlife can help local economics.
The amendment covers a range starting with responsibilities to individual wild animals and birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which was picked up by the Animal Sentience Committee as something that was slightly missing when we discussed the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I cannot help mentioning my beloved bird-safe design of buildings as a specific example of something that might be covered. Just as a reminder to those who might have missed the fun and games on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, buildings that are poorly designed in their use of glass and light can pose a serious threat to birds and are thought to kill around 30 million a year in the UK. Simple tweaks to the design of buildings in the planning stages can make them much safer to birds at no cost at all. But not many people know this, so guidance is necessary. Local authorities can use that guidance as they wish.
The amendment goes on to cover broader responsibilities to the environment and natural world. It would carry best practice advice on all the environmental services that can be harnessed to reduce flooding and pollution and to provide green spaces—all opportunities that can help local authorities to reach environmental as well as economic targets. So many developments that have gone badly wrong at the interface between economic and environmental growth could have been entirely turned around if, at the very outset of planning, the right expertise had been applied. It could make all the difference if a guide to best practice was a necessary part of the pack given to support local authorities. Without it, more avoidable issues might arise to the detriment of both the economics and the environment.
I completely recognise that I am not a drafter of legislation and that this amendment is very roughly worded. I anticipate that the Minister will say that the schedule already allows the Secretary of State to publish any guidance that they want, but I hope that the Government grasp this opportunity to put forward their own amendment to the Bill that commits to publishing a best practice guide that shows that they do not believe that protecting wildlife and helping nature is an opposing aim to wanting economic growth and that helps local authorities to see how both can be done together in a virtuous circle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I will be very brief. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and to recollect with great fondness the debate on bird-safe buildings. The Committee will probably be pleased to hear that I will not go further, but please, if noble Lords were not there, they should read it—is really important.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to speak in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Royall, which is great, but I will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, wearing my ex-energy hat.
There are sometimes tensions between growth and environmental protections. I pray in aid the saga of Hinkley Point C and the waste of years and millions of pounds spent in relation to acoustic fish deterrence. There are many examples of very bad practice by some of the environmental authorities in the way they deal with these issues. The history of major infrastructure projects in this country is so appalling in relation to the length of time taken that we need to look at this very carefully.
The noble Baroness is probably aware of the Fingleton review into the regulation of nuclear power stations, which was commissioned by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and came out in the autumn. Broadly, they have accepted it, but at the end of this month they have to respond in detail. What Fingleton recommended is controversial. He basically said that there needs to be one overriding regulator. This is subject to pushback from environmental lobbies at the moment, but people interested in growth are saying that we really have to go with Fingleton. All it illustrates is that sometimes there are tensions and I am not sure that we have yet found a way through them. Clearly, we all want to protect the environment and our habitats, but we also need to have growth. It will be interesting to see how the Minister responds to this.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
This is supposed to be a guide to best practice. The noble Lord has noted some of the poor practices. A guide would help to avoid some of those. That is important. I totally agree that there has been some terrible practice and it is usually done through ignorance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
We also have a terrible risk-averse culture among regulators in this country, which we need to tackle as well—but I really rose to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I have a later Clause 53 stand part notice, which partly covers the same ground.
Nye Bevan is a great hero of mine. He founded the NHS, but he made one mistake. He beat Morrison in Cabinet in 1947 in terms of the role of local government. Morrison of course had been leader of the London County Council, which, pre-war, had certainly been the largest hospital authority in the world. He argued that local government should be at the centre of the National Health Service. That was rejected, which was a great pity.
I have always believed that local government should play a much larger role, not just in health service provision, but also in health as a whole. My noble friend illustrated why that is important. She mentioned the Health Foundation’s report, which is stark in making clear that health outcomes in the UK are falling far behind those in other countries now. The country that we are most aligned with now is the US, whose health outcomes are pretty disastrous.
We know that we need a co-ordinated, system-wide approach, but what we have is fragmentation. The health service is outwith a lot of the discussions that noble Lords have been having in this Committee. It is very centrally driven. I had some happy years driving it from the centre, but I have concluded that it just does not work like that. We have seriously got to devolve. Local government deals with so many issues that relate to poor health, including transport, low incomes and poor-quality housing—all the things that noble Lords have been discussing. What I am doing, basically, is encouraging my noble friend the Minister to say that her department recognises that it has a bigger role to play in health than it may think.
Clause 44 is welcome. What we are trying to do is urge the Minister’s department to be as ambitious as possible and to do everything that it can to ensure that local government as a whole takes advantage of this. Mr Osborne’s agreement with the leader of Manchester City Council and its chief executive—in 2014 or 2015, I think—led to Devo Manc, which embraced health; it was the responsibility of the combined authorities rather than the mayor. There is enough evidence there to suggest that this is a good thing and that we need to build on it. My disappointment is that nothing has happened since then. The moment Mr Osborne left, no one in government was interested any more. I hope that we can resurrect it and say to local government, “We’re not going to improve our health without you being really important partners in this”.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just shared with us.
Earlier, I mentioned “learning by doing” cultures. What do they actually look like? We have been engaging in depth in east London for 42 years. We have pioneered a lot of the things that we now take for granted across the country in parts of the health service, including social prescribing. We have the long view. We spent time looking up the telescope, not down the telescope from government. When you engage in a local community in depth, you soon start to discover that health and wealth are absolutely connected—they are fundamental —yet the siloed systems of the state absolutely miss what all of this might mean and the opportunities that are there in practice.
The Bromley by Bow Centre, which I founded and of which I am now president, has pioneered wide-ranging approaches to these precise issues over the years. Today, we are responsible for 55,000 patients and we have built 97 businesses with local people. If they were here, our integrated health team would tell you that, on a vulnerable housing estate in the East End of London, getting a job has more of an impact on your health than anything that doctors can do in our health centre. All of them would tell noble Lords this. Yet, despite hosting 70 Government Ministers from different parties coming to see us over the past 30-odd years, when we share all this, they all say, “Yes, yes”, then go away. Nothing changes. In Bromley-by-Bow, we are still grappling with 62 different funding sources coming from the Treasury, all of which go down into different silos. We then spend a lot of money, with our staff, on putting things together around the same families. It is ludicrous. I share this with noble Lords: lessons are not being learned. In my view, the fundamental question that is being asked in this amendment is absolutely critical.
This Government are starting to talk about prevention and getting upstream. I agree with all of that but, if you talk to our GPs and our team—we have 2,000 visitors a year, from all over the country, looking at our work—they will tell you that the jury is out on whether this Government are serious about joining the dots around these issues. We will go not on what they say but on what they do. As far as we can see, at the moment there is little evidence that these dots are being joined up, but, if the Government get interested in practice, there is a great opportunity for this Administration and future Administrations coming down the line. This is not a party-political matter; it is a matter for us all and for the health of the nation.
In the 1990s, we realised, through practice actually, that the only way to gain scale with these kinds of issues is to start to partner with the private sector. We took these relationships seriously and today, both in east London and in a programme I lead nationally, we work with the private sector around place-making, and I declare my interests. The private sector is also concerned and interested in these questions. People in the private sector have children and families. Get to know them, dig under the carpet and create learning-by-doing cultures with them, and you will find opportunities to take these kinds of questions to scale. I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but I hope that we will move beyond amendments and yet more talk into practice and detail and get curious about what this actually looks like for local people.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his salutary warnings. It is very real when you have the experience of somebody in a particular local area who can say that the dots are not joined and that the funding streams are too many and are simply not joined together. There is a huge opportunity here if the Government can take it. This amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, seems to me to be central. I hope that the Minister is going to be helpful in her response. Local growth plans should take account of statutory health duties, and they should be brought together. There is a clear link between economic growth and health improvement. There should be that clear link. Health improvement has to be integral to growth plans. This seems to be unanswerable as a proposal, so I hope the Government will be in full listening mode.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, is important. It is helpful that she has proposed a way forward through statutory guidance. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. There is a serious danger that growth plans will lead to competition between economic growth and environmental growth responsibilities. I think the Government can help here by publishing guidance on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about the nuclear industry. I can think of other examples where there is a conflict between an environmental consideration and a growth consideration. Given the new world that we are about to enter with mayors and strategic authorities, clear guidance would be a big help in this area. I hope the Government will be in a positively responsive mood.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Freeman of Steventon, for tabling these amendments. As we have heard, Amendment 140 would ensure that local growth plans take into account statutory health duties and health inequalities strategies prepared by the strategic authorities. Councils have a crucial role to play and are often well placed to better understand and address local health issues, but I still bear the scars from trying to do this locally many years ago. It requires the NHS to devolve powers—and, as importantly, money—down. I tried. It was very positive to begin with —that is what they wanted us to do—but when push came to shove, acute hospitals always kept the money.
Until government can sort things out between the NHS and local authorities, that will not happen, which is a great shame. As we have heard, local authorities can create really safe environments that are more conducive to community well-being, promote healthy lifestyles and collaborate with other organisations to make really targeted interventions on the issues in their communities.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
It is interesting that at the moment the Government are trying to get the NHS to have an additional allocation to community health services in the planning guidelines. But all indications are that it is not happening, because the integrated care boards are saying that they have to protect acute services first. So community health services are not getting real additional funding. Before 1974, community health was of course run by local government and, with the suggestion to take it out again, I am beginning to wonder whether we do not need to be much more imaginative—basically to ring-fence resources.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I absolutely feel the pain of the noble Baroness, because we also feel the pain from the other end of the telescope. It is really difficult, and a lot of these systems are profoundly broken. However, this is an opportunity for this Government. The reason why practitioners like me are suggesting that the Government need to create learning-by-doing innovation platforms at place, in real communities, is because that is where the social sector, GPs, the local authority and the NHS can come together to do this stuff and then really learn the practical lessons. That is the only way; it is not through academic papers at 60,000 feet or policy people who have never built anything. It is about practice. Through practice, you will learn where the real blockages are, and what you then need to do is share the lessons learned. Until we get to that place and learn from the micro, I fear that we will keep talking and very little will change.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the two noble Lords for their interventions. I will just say that I do not believe it is about anything but power and money coming down—that was my experience. I tried to go to the full endgame; I tried to join the local director of children’s and adult care services with the local director of the NHS. I tried, but it did not work because health would not give up its power and its money.
Amendment 141B would add environmental responsibilities and opportunities to the local growth plan guidance published by the Secretary of State. While this is a well-intentioned amendment to help ensure that local growth plans balance environmental and economic considerations, which all local authorities have to do, we recognise that councils have to take into account a range of factors when drafting their local growth plans.
Indeed, councillors will be aware of their local area’s precious habitats and the places where nature is valued most. In my opinion, local communities are best placed to evaluate trade-offs between those environmental opportunities and economic growth, so we believe that this should be left to local councillors rather than for the Secretary of State to set out a potentially one-size-fits-all approach to this.
I am grateful for the contributions to this thoughtful and interesting debate and I am really looking forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that this has been a very thoughtful and interesting debate. I am grateful to all contributors and for the amendments to Schedule 20 on local growth plans.
I will start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, which draws our attention to the important role of mayors in addressing health inequalities in their areas. Through Clause 44, we are introducing a new legal requirement for combined and combined county authorities to have regard to the need to improve the health of people in their areas, and to reduce health inequalities between people living in their areas. This will reinforce our ambition to ensure that health is considered in all policies and will support our health mission in England.
I add that the mayoral competencies set out in the Bill specifically include health, well-being and public service reform, so that means that that should be taken into consideration in all the work that the mayor and the strategic authority do. It is the Government’s intention that mayors should sit on ICBs, which I hope will start to address some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Royall about how we get that linkage between what is going on in the national health and what is going on at local level.
There are some great examples across the country of what is happening—obviously, Manchester is the best known because it has specific powers to tackle health, and I really welcome that, but in a district council like my own, we took great interest in tackling some of the key health challenges in our area to help the economy, such as tackling obesity, smoking and some of the big, long-standing mental health challenges that we faced, and we worked closely with partners in doing that. Of course, there is no better example of the contribution that local authorities can make to public health than the response of local authorities to the Covid pandemic, in those very unique circumstances, so we know it can be done.
Although I recognise that it is not explicitly stated in relation to local growth plans, I can reassure the Committee that this new duty will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan. Indeed, as I said, many places are already demonstrating this awareness.
I know that many of my noble friends will be very sympathetic to the benefits of co-operative and mutual models in addressing these challenges—I know they are aware of my history in the co-operative movement. I hope they will also recognise that a key principle behind local growth plans is that they must be locally owned, in line with the fundamental principles of devolution.
I recognise the community wealth-building principles so clearly articulated by my noble friend Lady Royall, and the example that she gave of Preston, which has been a leading proponent of using the power of public procurement and provision of infrastructure and services to tackle inequalities in its local area. That has been very important, and Matthew Brown and his colleagues have done a very significant piece of work on that. However, while we may commend those local examples, we must afford local growth plans the flexibility for local challenges to be addressed in response to the local context.
I hope my noble friend feels reassured that mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities are already considering health as part of their plans, and that the new health improvement and health inequalities duty will achieve the desired effect. On that basis, I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 141B is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, and I thank her for all the discussions we have had around her environmental issues, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act and recently. The amendment would provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to set out in guidance how mayoral combined authorities should align growth measures in their local growth plan with considerations of nature, wildlife and the environment.
I want to reassure the Committee on two points. First, this is already possible. We have set out that the guidance on local growth plans can cover a range of matters. That includes the information to be included in a plan—that is to say, its content—and the ways in which the authority may have regard to the plan when exercising other functions. But the guidance is not limited to just these matters; it can cover additional matters not explicitly set out in the primary legislation. I reassure the Committee that this enables us to set out the matters included in this amendment, should that be needed.
Secondly, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities are already subject to several requirements linked to this amendment. This includes the recently strengthened biodiversity duty, which supports the delivery of legally binding biodiversity targets, as well as statutory duties related to air quality. Local growth plans will provide an important framework for economic growth, but they will sit alongside a range of other statutory plans, strategies and duties. Decisions that impact protected species, nature recovery and the environment will still need to consider relevant policy frameworks—for example, local nature recovery strategies, about which we had much discussion during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for setting out so clearly how important it is to ensure that in our planning process, whether it is local growth plans or spatial planning, we aim to create that win- win for development and the environment. We made some significant steps with that in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, and I hope that local growth plans will contribute to that as well.
That said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will feel reassured that the matters in her amendment must already be considered by mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. I hope she will feel reassured that, should further guidance be necessary, it remains possible to set this out in the guidance on local growth plans. I therefore ask that her amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her response, because she clearly understands the issues. I am super-grateful for all the contributions from noble Lords around the Room.
We are all absolutely in agreement that good health is a prerequisite for economic growth in our country. I realise that the Bill takes more account than ever before of the need for these new strategic authorities to act in relation to health and health inequalities. I hear all the frustrations around the Room about the fact that it has not really worked before. Manchester is working really well, and that is brilliant, but as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, pointed out, the dots simply are not joined, either in funding or in services terms. I know that a lot of that is because of the siloed way in which each of our public services receives its money. For it to work really well, we need to have properly funded local authorities and a well-funded health service.
This is a great opportunity, and I am sure that the Bill as it stands will take us a long way. Still, if we could have a statutory health duty in the Bill, it might be a catalyst for further action; it might be a real catalyst for discussion between the Treasury, the NHS and the MHCLG. I would really like to discuss this further with my noble friend before Report. I do not know how far we will get, but this is a great opportunity to make the system work better. I do not want to give up just yet, but I do not want to make her life a complete pain. I would like to come back to this matter before Report and have a discussion with my noble friend the Minister and her team but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) The mayoral combined authority must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, seeks to ensure that local growth plans include provision about cultural venues.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the amendments in this group. I thank my noble friends—I call them that—Lord Clancarty and Lord Freyberg for supporting them. I support Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I will speak particularly on Amendments 141, 146 and 222.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will be fairly brief, because last week we had a considerable discussion on cultural concerns. I support all the amendments in this group and have put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
The noble Baroness rightly points to cultural infrastructure. I would go further than venues. We should also be thinking about rehearsal spaces, artists’ studios, recording studios and ways of developing opportunities for the artists themselves, technicians and arts organisations, such as theatre companies, bands, orchestras and so on. There should be a consideration of public access to cultural services, such as museums and libraries. Indeed, every area of arts, culture and heritage should be considered to the extent that a separate cultural plan should be put in place to sit beside the local growth plan, and my Amendment 147 would put that in place.
As with the local growth plan, there are clearly different ways in which an area can develop its own arts and culture. No area is going to be the same. Every area will have its own individual plan, as it should do.
I am grateful for the discussions I have had with Culture Commons about this. I am also very grateful to the Minister for the very constructive discussions some of us had with her about this area yesterday.
Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is on the agent of change principle. We have had extensive discussions about this during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Nevertheless, this is an important amendment.
The grass roots music venues are very grateful for the 15% reduction in business rates, but this is not an either/or. A venue that is doing well can fold because the agent of change principle is not being properly or effectively applied.
The guidance alone is not working, as the Music Venue Trust is so clear about. As I said in the discussions on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, it points to the significant difference between Scotland, which has a statutory requirement and where the system works well, and England, which does not have a statutory requirement and where it does not work well at all. The Music Venue Trust has intimate knowledge of this, because it deals with cases.
I believe the amendment would make a significant difference. I fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I also support Amendments 141, 146 and 222 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to all of which I have added my name.
Taken together, these amendments recognise that culture does not operate in isolation but as an interconnected ecosystem with different parts depending on one another, as the noble Earl has said. That is why Amendments 141 and 146 would strengthen the place of culture in planning and strategic decision-making, while Amendment 147 rightly promotes a more systemic approach across the culture sector.
While I do not wish to repeat the arguments that I made at length during the passage of the planning Bill on the agent of change principle—this is another recycled amendment from that Bill—I want to underline the central point here and echo much of what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, namely that the agent of change principle is now widely accepted. Few would argue that new residential or commercial developments should be able to externalise their impacts on existing cultural venues, forcing those venues to absorb the cost of mitigation or, too often, close altogether. The Government have acknowledged this and announced their intention to implement agent of change through policy. However, the difficulty is that policy alone, whether in planning guidance or licensing frameworks, has consistently proved insufficient. Non-statutory approaches are applied unevenly, interpreted narrowly and too easily overridden when competing pressures arise. Guidance can be ignored, policy can be diluted, and, without a clear, legislative footing, enforcement becomes discretionary rather than expected. For cultural venues operating on tight margins, that uncertainty is, in itself, deeply damaging.
If the Government accept that the agent of change is necessary at all, and their own statements suggest that they do, it surely follows that it must be implemented in a form that is effective, durable and legally robust. That is precisely what Amendment 222 seeks to do. It would not create a new principle but give statutory force to an existing one, moving us from aspiration to assurance. For that reason, and for the coherence it brings alongside Amendments 141, 146 and 147, I strongly support Amendment 222 and urge the Government to look favourably upon it.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister knows, I wholly welcome the Bill, and I am delighted to hear Preston and Manchester being cited as examples of good practice, because, as the Committee knows, the north-west was my region. However, I rise to support the principle that local growth plans should include provision for cultural venues, especially live grass-roots venues.
If we look to music and the recent success that we have had at the Grammys, we see young women from disadvantaged backgrounds who came through the BRIT School, a free school, and worked in local live venues. If we look to the recent UK success at the BAFTAs and the Oscars, we see young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have been able to come through theatres and other live performance spaces, as the noble Earl said. We have, for instance, wonderful scripts, workshopped by local young people in local spaces, that then have huge success.
I particularly want to talk about youth theatre. People will be aware of the success of Liverpool’s Everyman Youth Theatre—I will stop talking about the north-west in a minute. I was born in Coventry. I have to say that youth theatre and youth education, which was provided in a joined-up way by the youth service at that point, gave me a pathway forward, and it gave a lot of my contemporaries an opportunity to have a way forward, as well as hope and participation, when a lot of our fathers were being made redundant from car factories in Coventry. I therefore hope that my noble friend will consider including in local growth plans the provision of live cultural venues and the development of local cultural plans.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the four amendments in this group should be supported in principle. We had a lengthy discussion on cultural and heritage issues last week during earlier Committee days considering the Bill.
Amendment 147, on cultural ecosystem plans, really matters. I support this amendment because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what, particularly the funding of local cultural assets and support.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments that relate to culture. I again welcome the good work of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on culture, and we welcome the spirit of Amendment 147, which seeks to have a cultural ecosystem plan and to protect cultural assets.
Culture is not always easily defined, and decisions about the forms or expression of culture that should be prioritised can be the subject of significant debate. Nevertheless, we often recognise culture when we encounter it. It is the old adage, “Try describing an elephant, but you sure as hell know what it is when you see it”. Much of it is often taken for granted, whether that is historic buildings, works of art, cultural events or long-standing traditions, such as choral music in our churches. Mayoral combined authorities and local councils should recognise the cultural assets that exist in their communities and do what they can to support them. That said, I have some reservations about this amendment as currently drafted; it needs careful thought on that drafting just to ensure that it does not end up encouraging either vanity projects or leading to a more rigid and formalised definition of a cultural asset. That potentially risks some limiting. It is drafting that we feel we need to think through. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his commitment and for this amendment.
Amendments 141 and 146 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering seek to ensure that local growth plans make provision for cultural venues. My noble friend raises several important points, and I hope the Minister will address them directly.
Finally, Amendment 222 would place a duty on local authorities to have regard to the agent of change principle, and I will not recycle all the arguments we went through in the last session of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. While the drafting may need a little refining, I hope that this amendment serves as a useful nudge to the Government to reflect further on how best to protect cultural venues from unintended consequences of development.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering —who never tests my patience, she has so much knowledge and experience—and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their amendments on the role of culture in local growth plans and on the agent of change principle.
On Amendments 141, 146 and 147, the Government are committed to ensuring that arts and culture thrive in every part of the country. In January, the Government announced an investment package of £1.5 billion, of which £1.2 billion is new, to support arts, culture, museums, libraries and heritage. Noble Lords have made a very powerful case for the inclusion of culture, heritage and arts to be included in mayoral competences, which is still under active consideration. We have committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities, including through a devolved fund, to drive growth in this important sector.
We know that mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities recognise the role of culture and the creative sector in supporting thriving communities. I also mention the cohesion role that they play, which was mentioned so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in an earlier debate on this subject. Indeed, many of them are raising culture in their local growth plans. Many places are taking this further, such as Greater Manchester with its dedicated culture strategy and the West Midlands—for the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin—establishing a partnership programme with the industry. Indeed, the noble Baroness gave other powerful examples. I take this opportunity to congratulate those two absolutely brilliant young women from the BRIT School who won Grammy awards. They absolutely stormed it at the Grammy awards the other day—so congratulations to them.
Introducing an additional duty would be burdensome and, as demonstrated, is not necessary to achieve the desired effect. In December, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, published her independent review of Arts Council England. Following that, the Government are considering how to ensure that culture is supported by strategic authorities. As part of this, we are considering how it relates to all strategic authorities, not just the mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities that are developing local growth plans.
Specifically on the amendments from noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which relate to the pipeline of investment projects that must be set out as part of local growth plans, I point out that our guidance sets an expectation that this pipeline should be a shortlist of projects that are critical for unlocking growth, with the potential to crowd in private investment, and capable of unlocking significant returns. It is our view that, ultimately, it must be up to local areas to determine which projects fit that bill. These amendments would run counter to that principle and would require a one-size-fits-all approach that I know many Members are wary of. Rather than being mutually reinforcing for local growth, and the arts and culture, these amendments could cause confusion over the types of projects to include as part of that investment pipeline.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her Amendment 222, and share her desire to ensure that new housing does not constrain the operation of existing facilities in the surrounding area. I think that the music trust makes a very powerful case in this regard. However, new legislation would be duplicative of existing policy and is also less flexible, as it gives authorities less ability to weigh important considerations when making planning decisions. The agent of change principle is firmly established in the planning system as a relevant policy consideration. The current National Planning Policy Framework is clear that businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established.
Local planning authorities can request noise impact assessments when they consider it necessary; when making decisions, they have the ability to consider factors such as the type of development and how close it is to major sources of noise. The planning process can help to reduce adverse impacts by using measures such as careful layout and good design to limit noise transmission. The licensing regime also already enables local authorities to consider the agent of change principle when making decisions. The legislation is designed to recognise that different communities face different challenges, and local licensing authorities are able to incorporate the principle into their statements of licensing policy if they consider it necessary or useful to do so.
Furthermore, local authorities can consider a range of factors when deciding whether a complaint amounts to a statutory nuisance. They have a legal duty to investigate each case individually, taking into account relevant circumstances and their knowledge of the local area. I recognise the importance of safeguarding key cultural establishments from new residential development, and we are already taking a number of steps to improve the implementation of the agent of change principle. I hope that answers the points from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about this being in place. We want to toughen it up, and I will talk now about some of those steps.
In planning, we are consulting on a new National Planning Policy Framework, which includes the option of strengthening the agent of change policy and clearly setting out that applicants must consider both the current and permitted levels of activity for nearby existing uses, such as licensed music and cultural venues. As I pointed out before, although the National Planning Policy Framework is not a statutory document in itself—it cannot be because it needs to be flexible as circumstances change—it sits in the statutory planning process and carries substantial weight because of that.
In licensing, we recently conducted a call for evidence as part of the licensing reforms programme, which included a question on the application of the agent of change principle within the licensing regime. Detailed analysis covering responses to this will be published in due course.
For all these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken; it goes to show the breadth of knowledge we have, both in the Committee and in the House, among those involved. I was particularly taken by the reference that the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, made to the BRIT School. It is outstanding that we had two clear winners at that time.
On the venues, I think it is important that we continue to stress these, but on the principle of agent of change, I am afraid I have to say that I am not content with the Minister’s response. I should have known, being a non-practising Scottish advocate, that we have a statutory basis for this in Scots law. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has proven very eloquently how we are operating under an inferior system here. Certainly, it is the wish of all those who gave evidence to the inquiry on the reform of the Licensing Act 2003, albeit in 2016-17, that it could operate better. We are still in a position where we do not have statutory guidelines.
I simply do not accept, for the same reasons I gave in the earlier debate on SUDS, that planning guidance is planning guidance. You can have a legal basis in an Act such as the Licensing Act, which we recommended be reformed, or this would be the ideal Bill in which to put it. If that is what licensing and planning practitioners are asking us to do, I feel honour-bound that we should do this. I wish to bring this back on Report and would welcome a meeting with the Minister and others who are concerned by this before that time. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to understand why the provision is limited solely to current employees of a constituent council of a combined authority, and does not extend to other employers participating in the LGPS. It aims to explore the rationale for excluding staff of housing associations, admitted bodies, and other local employers who play a significant role in the community, and to question whether this distinction is justified or creates unnecessary inconsistency within the scheme.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook.
Noble Lords from across the Grand Committee and indeed the House will be aware that the pensions Bill is currently in Committee and that the first two days of scrutiny were marked by a substantial number of amendments probing the Government’s approach to the Local Government Pension Scheme. We tabled numerous amendments on the technical detail of the valuation methodology, contribution rates, consultation requirements and interim reviews. I am sure the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to rehearse those matters again today.
Likewise, I do not wish to upset the Minister in any way, but I note that it was disappointing that no Minister from the MHCLG was present during the discussions. The LGPS sits squarely across the responsibilities of both the DWP and the MHCLG. While long-standing, this overlap too often creates complexity and tension, and I fear that it could result in policy that is not always well aligned with the realities on the ground.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief because we ought to hear from the Minister on the range of questions that have been produced, and I do not want to simply restate them. I have always supported greater investment by local government pension schemes. I should declare an interest, since I have a very small local government pension from the days when councillors were able to be part of the scheme. I just make that absolutely clear, even though the sum I receive is really very small.
I have always wanted local government pension schemes to invest more in their areas to drive growth in their areas. It seems an entirely laudable objective, but it has to be consistent with the scheme managers’ fiduciary responsibilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made clear in their explanatory statements, scheme managers have to remain independent and focused solely on the interests of scheme members. There are those two competing requirements.
I want to support the Government’s objectives here. This has to be the right thing to promote, although one has to be extremely careful. At this stage, that statement of principle from me is probably sufficient, and it would be useful to hear the Government’s response.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for Amendments 148, 149, 150 and 153. I will try to clarify the questions that she asked and, if I cannot, I am more than willing to write to her. Some of these pension aspects are very technical.
These amendments relate to the important requirement that strategic authorities work with the Local Government Pension Scheme funds in their area. This mirrors the duty to co-operate with strategic authorities placed on LGPS funds in the Pension Schemes Bill. The aim is to help strategic authorities to identify local projects that are appropriate for pensions investment and drive growth.
I recognise the noble Baroness’s intention, in tabling Amendment 148, to seek to broaden the provisions to include other employers participating in the scheme. The clause requires the strategic authority itself, rather than its constituent authorities, to co-operate with the relevant pension fund. In my view, this is the correct approach. Strategic authorities are responsible for driving local growth; as such, they should be aware of the interests of housing associations, admitted bodies and other local employers. An additional requirement for multiple other organisations to collaborate with the LGPS would place an unnecessary burden on those employers.
I turn to Amendments 149 and 153. I recognise the intentions to preserve the independence of LGPS-administering authorities and to reduce the burden of regulation on their functions. I assure noble Lords that the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duties of local pension funds in any way. The decision on whether or not to invest in a particular asset will be made by the asset pool, not the fund. This will help protect the fund against potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that all investments are made in the interests of the fund. Supporting guidance will be clear that investments should only ever be made where that investment helps the investing pension fund to meet pension liabilities.
The Government want to see funds and asset pools working closely with combined authorities, including corporate joint committees in Wales, in order to identify and develop appropriate investment opportunities so that the investment might of the Local Government Pension Scheme can drive local growth. I share the view of the noble Baroness that this requirement must be workable. For this reason, the high-level requirement does not put a restrictive framework on exactly how strategic authorities must work with the scheme. It will be up to strategic authorities to establish a system that is workable for them. Further, I point your Lordships to the existing guidance for strategic authorities on the development of local growth plans, which supports strategic authorities in establishing a productive relationship with investors.
I turn now to Amendment 150. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for asking important questions regarding a requirement for funds to participate in an asset pool. Asset pooling is the cornerstone of the Government’s investment reforms for the LGPS, bringing significant benefits of scale and expertise. As I have said, the Government are not seeking to undermine the fiduciary duty of local pension funds in any way. The responsibility to set an investment strategy—the key driver of investment returns—will remain with funds, ensuring that they retain local accountability and decision-making and that they can drive performance. The duty in this clause is complementary to the duty that will be placed on LGPS funds through regulations made under the Pension Schemes Bill. It will work effectively only if the concept of participation is defined in the same way in both pieces of legislation. That is why the Government are tabling amendments to this clause to reflect changes that have been made to the Pension Schemes Bill.
A question was asked about pooling. Integrated models in which strategic advice and investment management are both delivered by the same fiduciary manager are commonly used in private sector schemes and internationally. These models can deliver greater value for money and economies of scale. Asset pool companies will be required to have robust policies and procedures to identify and manage conflicts of interest. In contrast to external advisers, asset pools owned solely by LGPS AAs are expected to provide services in their interest. They do not stand to gain financially from the partner fund taking their advice or from providing poor-quality advice. I will look again at the noble Baroness’s speech in Hansard to make sure that we have covered all her questions and so that she has what we are doing in writing.
I turn now to government Amendments 151, 152, 154, 155, 156 and 157. These minor and technical amendments correct the definition of participating in an asset pool company. They will accommodate a pool company structure where the pool is owned by a holding company, thereby allowing an existing pool—the Local Pensions Partnership—to be included in the definition. This is not a change in policy but a correction.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the Government have now confirmed a substantial programme of reform of the Local Government Pension Scheme through this Bill and the wider pensions Bill. Taken together, these measures represent a significant moment in the evolution of LGPS asset pooling and governance.
“(ab) being a shareholder in another company which is the only shareholder of the company, or”Member's explanatory statement
This reflects changes to the definition of an asset pool company in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This reflects a numbering change in the Pension Schemes Bill.
“(ab) being a shareholder in another company which is the only shareholder of the company, or”Member's explanatory statement
This reflects changes to the definition of an asset pool company in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This reflects a numbering change in the Pension Schemes Bill.
“(ab) being a shareholder in another company which is the only shareholder of the company, or”Member's explanatory statement
This reflects changes to the definition of an asset pool company in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This reflects a numbering change in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am intervening as the Whip just to say that this is rather a large group, which will probably take us to the time at which we should finish, at 8.15 pm. It is in the hands of noble Lords whether we complete the group or whether we have to split it and end up discussing it again in the next session.
Clause 44: Health improvement and health inequalities duty
Amendment 158
Lord Addington
Lord Addington (LD)
That is a challenge that the Committee should probably face more often.
The amendment calls on the function here of strategic authorities. It talks about sport and recreation and comes under the heading of health. There is a general consensus that exercise is the wonder drug. If you make your body exercise correctly, it has huge health benefits, physically and psychologically. This is about making sure that the strategic authorities allow these activities to take place. When I drafted this amendment, I was thinking about it on two levels. One was grass-roots sports—that is, are you allowing organised sport to take place and are you providing enough pitches for your football and rugby teams, and so on? Are you allowing enough recreational spaces for people to be able to take part in sport?
I look at the rest of the group, and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, is the only person to mention physical activity in her amendments, so I may be ploughing a lonely furrow—but I hope that it is not an inappropriate one. Unless we know that this is being taken on board and something is being done about it, it will get forgotten. Much of the structure here, especially in grass-roots sports, is under pressure anyway. The school structure is largely in individual academies, and public parks are difficult and expensive to maintain, if you want a flat, even surface to run around on. Very few sports do not have that basic requirement. It means keeping them drained and at least clean enough for you to go on them without risking injury or illness. It is a big ask.
Most noble Lords here are much more experienced in local government than me, but we do not do things like tennis courts that well and they are easy to cut. Can the Government give us some idea of what they are going to do here to make sure these facilities are kept available? They are preventative health, they maintain your health and they are a community asset. I have not even started to talk about sports centres and swimming pools—maybe we will take those as read—but what is the Government’s activity here and with how much seriousness do we address this? Sport is often regarded as not being important or anything to do with public health. That is the way it can seem to many of us, but it is actually a key component.
I have spoken enough so, bearing in mind the words of the Government Whip on this, I will curtail my comments here and beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to Amendment 159 and a number of other amendments in this group. I begin by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that he is not ploughing a lonely furrow. I would have signed his amendment if I could have caught up with myself, among many other things. Last night—or this morning; I have lost track—we were talking about these issues in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. As was evident there, I am sure we can get a similar head of steam for this Bill, and I am we can build up a head of steam when we get to Report, if it is necessary.
In the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I was pushing very hard for England to have a play sufficiency strategy at the national level, focused not so much on the formal team sports arrangement, like the noble Lord, but on the places where young people can simply go out, run around, climb a tree and all those sorts of things. That is something I am certainly very keen to pursue.
However, I am now going to make the Whip very happy. It is not something I say very often, so I hope the Whip has noticed. Although this is a very large list of amendments, many of them have the same intention as Amendment 159, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, has kindly attached her name. As the explanatory statement says, this
“broadens the list of health determinants and health outcomes”.
There is a large number of amendments here, and I will leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, to explain the technicalities, rather than us going through all this twice—because she is definitely the expert in this space.
I tabled this amendment because health experts came to me and said that the Government’s wording is not right, and that they are not up to date with the latest ways of approaching and talking about these issues to make sure that they are not missing anything out. I very much hope the Minister will be prepared to work with interested people to make sure that the Bill is up to date with the latest thinking about public health, because it is surely important to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities start from the right place on public health.
I will devote most of my time to Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to which I have attached my name, giving mayors the ability to carry out their functions regarding the display of advertising, transferring the powers under Section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act to mayors and local authorities so they consider the impact of advertising on public health, and enabling them to regulate the content of advertisements deemed to have an adverse impact on local health and likely to exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes. This is an underconsidered area in which so much of the rest of the world is progressing, while we are not.
I have spoken before about how Sheffield, for example, with a visionary public health leader, has taken real steps to control the advertising occurring on council-owned billboards, et cetera. But, as I said, we are way behind. The excellent campaign group, Adfree Cities, charts how there are now 1,300 towns and cities around the world that have banned billboard advertising. Most recently, Amsterdam banned adverts for fossil fuels, flights, meat, and other harmful and high-carbon products.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 159, to which I have added my name, and a series of amendments in my name. I apologise to the Committee that they had to be put in individually for procedural reasons, but essentially they would add to the list in Clause 44, and they all have to be done twice because it appears twice. I hope to keep this as short as possible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, these amendments were all suggested by researchers into the determinants of health to bring the clause into closer alignment with current research on the subject, as well as definitions, such as those used by the World Health Organization.
Everyone is delighted to see Clause 44 because there is good evidence that structural changes without changes in resourcing can make measurable differences to people’s health. I hope I can delight the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, further by picking on Manchester as another well-studied, brilliant example of the effects of devolution. The results showed higher life expectancy in the lower income areas, which researchers think are related to improved collaborations between different services rather than more money being spent. If this is a causal effect and can be replicated elsewhere, it would obviously be great, and it would be great to measure it. This is why the researchers want to get right the things being measured and being taken account of by a mayor.
This is where my little list comes in. First, it is important to take account of the right health outcomes. Researchers suggested the list of health outcomes in Amendment 159, which I did not prepare to speak about, but I think they are self-explanatory, so we can leave that there. The series of amendments in my name alter the list of determinants of these outcomes. They are things that we know might affect someone’s health, so we have to keep an eye on them. Some that are known from research are missing in the current draft of Clause 44. Amendment 167A would add the availability of housing to standards of housing in new Section 24A(5)(a) because homelessness and housing security, which are known to affect physical and mental health, would not technically fall under standards of housing.
Amendment 167B would add noise pollution as one of the environmental factors in new paragraph (b). It is well recognised by those who study public health that exposure to noise pollution can contribute to cardiovascular risks and poorer mental health, so we need to take it into account like we do other forms of pollution.
Amendment 167C would put educational opportunities and attainment alongside employment and earning prospects in new paragraph (c). In the WHO’s report, A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health, education is a key underlying structural determinant that can affect jobs, income and all the other downstream aspects. So improving access to educational opportunities is key to reducing inequalities, including in health.
Amendment 167D is more specific on the sorts of public services referred to in new paragraph (d), making it clear that they should include retail and health and leisure facilities—they can, therefore, include the negative effect of retailers of less healthy foods, for example, or the absence of active transport facilities—as well as education, employment and access to health and leisure facilities, encompassing all the key services that are known to shape people’s health.
Amendments 167E and 167F would modify new paragraph (e). As drafted, it is about the use of tobacco, alcohol and other lifestyle factors that may be harmful to health. Amendment 167F would explicitly add diet and physical activity as important determinants to be considered. Of course, we know how much these can positively or negatively affect health. Amendment 167E would therefore add “exposure to”, as well as “the use of”, to recognise that some people are passively exposed to not just tobacco but advertising for tobacco, alcohol and less healthy foods; this is a known determinant of health and driver of inequalities.
Finally, Amendment 167G would specify that
“any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors”
should include
“social and structural conditions, including social class, gender, race, ethnicity and any other characteristics or forms of social inequality that influence exposure to advantage or disadvantage”.
That would better cover the remainder of other determinants of health that are well recognised and to which we would want mayors to have regard.
I hope that the Minister will consider the substance of these amendments because, although they are not professionally drafted, they are based on professional research in the field and, I think, get at exactly what the Government hope to achieve: a great step forward in public health.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman. What I have to add is that my Amendments 160, 161, 163, 164, 165 and 169 would bring a more climate change-related and environmental aspect to the asks of the Government. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Bennett, said, we are really pleased that this is here; I very much feel that we can work together to build on it. Here, I note the work of Leeds University and the Yorkshire and Humber Climate Commission.
My first amendment is on energy. A 2023 European scoping review found that energy poverty and fuel poverty are significantly linked to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, excess winter mortality and poor mental health, with older people and children among the most vulnerable. A 2022 UCL Institute of Health Equity report found the same facts. It impacts population health at a structural level. In addition, I stress the low-carbon part of this amendment. Since the introduction of the ULEZ in London, gas boilers have somehow managed to become the largest source of nitrous oxide pollution. Air quality is listed in the Bill, but it is important to emphasise the interlinked nature: one impacts on the other.
My second amendment is on water pollution. Recent storms have highlighted—in fact, we were talking about this last night—the number of learning hours lost because of the fact that schools are flooded. We are extremely vulnerable to this, and we have very poor flood defences in our schools. I will not bore the Committee at length about the state of our waterways—every Peer in the place has already done this; I expect a Bill in the next Session—but, between 2010 and 2022, there was a 60% rise in hospital admissions for waterborne diseases in England. This is serious, as they are associated with gastrointestinal illnesses and reproductive and developmental issues.
On resilience, excess heat affects deprived communities more than wealthy ones due to the quality of buildings. A simple thing such as having leafy streets provides proper cooling.
I included my third amendment, on participation in democracy, because studies have shown that increased community involvement can have a really positive impact on health. Personally, I am very excited that, from this month, the National Lottery will devote either 20% or 25% of its entire funding to community engagement, such as community gardening and things like that. It makes a great statement about what really matters to people.
On food and diet, I very much support Amendment 168 on advertising. We know how bad food deserts are and how access to healthy food really affects poorer communities. Last week, I raised the issue of PFAS in a debate on the schools Bill. That is a Defra issue, of course, but it is relevant here because one of the prominent forms of exposure comes through our diet, particularly heating food in a plastic container in a microwave; that is, I am afraid, what lower-income families end up doing—so there is a double whammy.
Amendment 169 proposes a duty relating to allotments and nature-rich spaces. Again, this is something I have talked about a lot. I know that it is difficult for councils to create allotments because they are forever spaces, in a sense, but it is not difficult for councils to grant the right to grow in their communities and to issue meanwhile leases, which is what we did with capital growth in London; we created 2,500 spaces that are still going on now. These really make a big difference to communities. As I say, I am very pleased that the National Lottery is going in this direction on funding, because it will work with the Government and make a substantial difference to people’s real, lived experience.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 165A is in my name. It seeks to
“include wheelchair and community equipment provision in the list of ‘general health determinants’ that authorities need to have regard to as a cause of health inequality”.
My intention is to highlight to noble Lords that the provision of wheelchairs and community equipment for disabled people is, to put it bluntly, a disgrace. I urge the Government to look at the outcomes at the moment for those who depend on wheelchairs and disability equipment and, basically, to ensure that local authorities and the NHS play their part in putting things right.
As the Wheelchair Alliance has said, at the moment, there are no consistent national standards, there is no independent regulation and there are few clear paths for users seeking repairs, reporting faults or making complaints. As a result, many disabled people face long waiting times, delays in hospital discharge, loss of independence, social isolation and, tragically, avoidable deterioration in health and well-being. It is the same dismal picture with community equipment, embracing hoists, hospital beds, pressure-related mattresses, grab rails, bathing aids, harnesses and all of the other essential items that we need.
The All-Party Group for Access to Disability Equipment recently reported on the systemic crisis in this sector. Carers think that things are getting worse, and the system is inconsistent, underinvested, fragmented and lacking leadership. What is tragic is that this is easily sortable. I am convinced that, if we sorted this out, we would provide a better service at less cost, because the current system is just a complete and utter mess.
The reason why the Bill is suitable is because local authorities and integrated care boards share responsibility for community equipment. Wheelchair services and community equipment often reach the same individual; they should operate in tandem, but they are two distinct systems. In welcoming this very good clause, I would like an assurance that combined authorities, in collaboration with the NHS, will take their responsibilities in relation to wheelchair and community equipment services seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made an important point about the difficulties that local authorities sometimes have in working with the health service and in the release of budget. Here we have a situation where both types of authority spend money inefficiently. I am suggesting that we could provide a much better service. Either the quality will be much better or we will have consistent quality, at least; I do not think that it will cost a lot of extra money as well.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 166 would provide a clear mechanism for implementation and accountability of the proposed health duty, while maintaining local flexibility. It would require strategic authorities to produce a health inequality strategy and report on progress every five years.
In many ways, this follows the debate we had on earlier amendments. It is intended to provide a minimum standard and accountability for strategic authorities to adhere to, ensuring that they are meeting their new health duty. The requirement to report every five years was deliberately designed to be the same length of time as the proposed local growth plans will cover, to ensure that they better support one another in strengthening local economies and improving health. The amendment would also ensure that new strategic authorities will mirror existing practice in London, ensuring that health and well-being are embedded across all strategic functions.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 165A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I thank him for tabling it. As a wheelchair user, I know from first-hand experience that if you cannot move around your own home or get out, to socialise with friends, go shopping or go to work, for example, that will inevitably have a negative impact on your health, both physical and mental.
Of course, each of these negative health impacts will also have an inevitable negative impact on the NHS, whether that is additional out-patient treatment or hospitalisation; on the retail sector, given that the purple pound—the spending power of households containing one or more disabled people—is estimated to be worth £274 billion; on the disability benefits bill, which, in October 2024, the OBR estimated to be £48 billion; and on the disability employment gap, which continues to hover at around 30%. Does the Minister therefore accept that access to wheelchair and community equipment services is, as his noble friend argued, a health inequality issue? Does he also accept that, while not purporting to be a panacea, the approach proposed by his noble friend’s amendment does at least seek to put this issue on the radar? I fear that it is not currently on the radar—if it is, it is only an obscure blip at the edge of a screen.
The neglect of wheelchair and community equipment services by successive Governments has consequences. I do not propose to repeat the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, but I add that, if weak regulation and limited transparency are not a recipe for success anywhere else, why should NHS wheelchair and community equipment services be the exception? This fragmented system makes it hard to challenge poor performance. Without national direction, inequality has become normalised.
To finish, fragmentation may make for better ICB balance sheets in the short term, but history shows that, in the medium term, it is a very costly false economy. In short, we are cutting our nose to spite our face. This amendment invites us to look at the bigger picture. I hope very much that the Minister will agree, and I look forward to his response.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 165A. One in three eligible disabled people are still waiting for approved community equipment; one in five wait more than two months and 74% of delayed hospital discharges are linked to equipment delays. This amendment would include wheelchair and community equipment provision in the list of general health determinants that authorities need to have regard to as a cause of health inequality. I hope that my noble friend can include this important equality provision for disabled people, which is both economically and socially relevant.