Lords Grand Committee

Tuesday 23rd June 2026

(began 2 months, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:45
15:45
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

My Lords, I beg to move. The committee considers the Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026, which were laid before the House on the 27th of April. The government was clear in our manifesto that housing need in England cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, and that we would introduce new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. To that end, the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which received Royal assent in December of last year, legislated for the reintroduction of an England wide system of strategic plan making.

The act inserted a new part one A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, placing a duty on strategic planning authorities to prepare a spatial development strategy, an SDS, an SDS will form part of the development plan to which local planning authorities must have regard when determining planning applications, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local plans will be required to be, in general conformity with the relevant spatial development strategy. SDS are high level plans that will define the overall scale and distribution of growth and development across an area, including the potential need for regeneration, environmental protection or enhancement.

They may identify broad locations for development, the infrastructure required to support it, and can redistribute housing and other development needs between local planning authorities. These regulations make two minor, consequential amendments to support the implementation of this new system, which we intend to commence later this year. They amend section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, so that SDS examinations are classed as statutory inquiries within the meaning of the Tribunal and Inquiries Act, 1992. Enabling the Lord Chancellor to make rules related to the procedure to be followed during the examination of an SDS.

They also amend the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that marine planning authorities must notify strategic planning authorities of their intention to start preparing a marine plan. Strategic planning authorities are the local government bodies that will be responsible for preparing an SDS unless the Secretary of State directs. Otherwise, a draft spatial development strategy must be examined by a person appointed by them. The matters to be examined are for the examiner to determine. However, the draft National Planning Policy Framework sets out that the purpose of the examination should be to assess that relevant procedural requirements have been met and that the strategy is sound.

Alongside any other matters that the examiner considers appropriate. Regulation two amends section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, to allow the Lord Chancellor to make rules under section nine of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1992, governing the procedures for examinations. Any such regulations will support the effective examination of a strategy, regulation three amends paragraph one of schedule six to the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 to require a marine plan authority to notify a strategic planning authority whose area adjoins or is adjacent adjacent to Marine Plan areas of its intention to prepare a marine plan.

This requirement already extends to local planning authorities and will enable strategic planning authorities to consider how they wish to participate in the marine planning process and to put in place appropriate arrangements for that participation. This is the first part of a wider package of secondary legislation that we are preparing to support the implementation of the new system of strategic Plan, making other statutory instruments which we intend to make in the autumn, will include regulations making further consequential amendments to secondary legislation. Rules on the procedure to be followed during an examination, and regulations setting out the procedure to be followed in connection with the preparation of a spatial development strategy.

I trust the committee agrees that these minor, consequential regulations are necessary, and that you will support the effective implementation of the new system of spatial spatial development strategies.
15:49
15:50
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

I wonder if I might intervene at this stage just to. Firstly, to say that, as the Committee may well recall, I think pretty much everybody in the Committee was present during the Planning and Infrastructure bill passage. Um, and going back to the Levelling Up and regeneration Bill, I was been very supportive of. Spatial planning and we want to see that brought into effect as soon as possible. Um I should declare my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and um supporter and adviser to other development forums in other locations as detailed.

The development community in all of those places, one of the, one of the consistent messages that come through is, is the desirability, not simply of having subregional spatial planning at a strategic level, not confined to, to the territory of one local planning authority generally, but embracing several, but also, which is what is really afforded by that opportunity, the ability to bring together transport strategies, infrastructure strategies, growth plans, and spatial development strategies into one document that can then help not only to guide, but also to direct the planning infrastructure. So coming to these statutory instruments, I say these because the minister, very helpfully further explained, as the explanatory notes do, that this is one of several statutory instruments necessary to bring this procedure of of strategic development strategies into place.

So, um, I suppose if the minister says in the autumn, I suppose what I want to really to find out is, um what is going to happen when um. I am hopeful and I hope the minister will be able to confirm that it remains the government's intention to publish the response to the consultation on the draft. Nppf in July before recess, so that we can see the final NPF, and we don't have to wait for the customary publication just before Christmas. Um, and we can get on with the NPF.

I'm hoping then, in terms of the timetable, that that will mean that it will be possible for there to be planning policy guidance published in relation to the preparation of spatial development strategies. And for that to happen as soon as possible in the autumn. But certainly, I would have thought by the end of the year now, um, that will together with the statutory instruments, hopefully unlock the point at which the government can set a period during which combined authorities are asked to publish, uh, and to send to submit to the Secretary of State their spatial development strategy timetable.

Uh, and I'm assuming that this will be applied in relation to groups one and two, that the minister and the committee will recall that the government, um, just a little earlier published, uh, a geography of Spatial Development strategy areas and groups 1 or 2 essentially are the existing strategic mayoral combined authorities and the devolution priority programme. So I guess I'm looking for groups one and two to have their sdz timetables requested to be submitted in the early part of next year at the latest. So I'd be very grateful if the minister was able to to give the committee, um, a sense of that complete timetable for Sdz.

Just turning briefly to the content of the NPF and the overview, um, I suppose really the um. When the NPF is published, uh, the, the. The overview in the draft wasn't explicit about the requirement, which is in the statute for a spatial development strategy to set out the amount and distribution of housing, and also to set out the amount and distribution of affordable housing. Hoping that the Minister can tell us, which I have mentioned, I think, in an earlier debate on. The English devolution bill.

I hope the Minister can. Can assure the Committee that the NPF is being amended to make some of these requirements of a spatial development strategy a bit clearer. I think we should be under no illusions about the difficulties that will potentially emerge, because we may well have spatial development strategies that are born of a local growth plan that is ambitious. In my own area of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, for example, there's a very ambitious growth plan published by Paul Bristow, the mayor. If local.

Authorities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were simply to operate on the basis of the standard method, which of. Of assessing housing need. There is, in my view, no way in which the growth plan that the mayor is looking for could be accommodated by the level of housing supply that is implied by that. So in order for local plans, in my view, to be consistent with the spatial development strategy, local plans are going to have to go further. The same may well be true.

There may well be considerable questions raised by greenbelt policy. So for example, I think in Manchester Stockport couldn't agree with the other the other local authorities in Manchester on a joint development plan, not least because of the difficulties of agreeing over green belt policy. Well, a spatial development strategy is going to. Can potentially, according to the guidance thus far um set out. Where changes to the green belt need to be considered in local plans, but the Local plan set out where the boundaries are.

Now, what happens if a. If a local planning authority, um seeks to adopt a local plan which doesn't change the boundary of a green belt, they've considered it and they've decided not to change it does that does the fact that they have considered it but not done it mean they are consistent with the spatial development strategy, or are they not?I think we have to be as we go along, we have to be increasingly clear about what consistency with the spatial development strategy actually looks like. So I say that because I think we are going to have a number of these debates, not necessarily on every statutory instrument, but certainly, I think as we move towards the guidance being published, it will bring some of those important issues to the forefront.

So, um, I think, um, what all that I would further ask the minister is about the um, is about the, uh, follow up. To the geography document. Um, the committee will recall that, uh, although there is um. There is the geography for many of the combined authorities is established for others it is not. Um, so we do need valleys concerned. Many of the combined authorities is established. For others it is not so, for example, where Thames included in the Thames Valley or to be a single foundation strategic authority.

Um. So we do need to, to, to learn a bit more about what the um, what many of the combined authorities is established for others, it is not. So for example, where Thames Valley is concerned, we simply do not yet know whether Buckinghamshire is to be included in the Thames Valley or to be a single foundation strategic authority. Um, so we do need to, to, to learn a bit more about what the, um, what the final geography is going to look like and when we might hear that because unless we get that, I don't think we can see strategic planning boards established for those areas where we are not seeing a mayor put in a combined authority put in place relatively soon.

So I'm hoping that we will have a timetable for that as well. One final question. I was prompted by being up in, um, uh, up in Warrington um yesterday. Um Liverpool uh, are relatively advanced in the preparation of a spatial development strategy and as I understand it, are presently looking to have it examined next year and adopted next year. Um, will Liverpool city region's spatial development strategy be treated as consistent with the requirements of spatial development strategy, as set out under the Planning and Infrastructure Act?I'm hoping, I'm hoping because it is designed alongside the Sdz for London, that it would be.

So I'm hoping that the Minister will say that through Liverpool's sdz, we can begin to see the the process of spatial planning actually being implemented in some places across England. But, um, all those are really questions arising from the statutory instrument. Uh, certainly I don't want to be thought to be opposing it in any sense. I support the s I. My lords.
15:59
16:00
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Um, I'm. Like to thank the noble lady, the Minister, for presenting the regulations before us today. I'm afraid I'm going to break the harmony. Um, I've never been. The minister will recall our debates on the previous legislation that my noble friend Lord Lansley rehearsed. Um, I go back to the time I was first elected on the same day as Lord Lindsay, to the other place, um, in 1997, where the then Labour government did introduce regional planning and the regional spatial strategy.

And I ask the same question now that I ask ask then. Um and that is, where will the voice of rural areas be heard in this space?Uh, which space will rural areas be occupied?If you look at the population of North Yorkshire, it is 11% of the total population of the region of Yorkshire and the Humber. And yet I would say that with now the replacement of districts and boroughs by combined authority and a mayor, that the rural areas have lost their voice.

What I did see over the years of the the previous Labour government, which in fact perhaps the next Prime Minister was was a quite a dominant part of that was that the rural voice was, was, was pretty much extinct. To give you examples as to why, I think it's important that we do consider the rural voice. There is a sort of trend of building 4 or 5 bedroomed homes, whereas in rural areas what we really need are 1 or 2 bedroomed homes. But obviously it's not of interest to developers necessarily to build that kind of building stock.

So the question then arises is what consultation will there be when these, um, spatial strategies come out?I've been looking at the pages of the North Yorkshire, uh, and. Surrounding area York, North Yorkshire, East riding Hull, uh, have produced a spatial framework. Looking ahead to 2035 to 2050. Now I'm aware of rural house prices being higher. But until I read that framework report, I wasn't actually aware that urban house prices in parts of. That particular cohort and North Yorkshire in particular, probably Hull as well, are higher.

It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that the incomes are predominantly lower in these areas. So you do obviously have the challenge, then, of lower wages and higher house prices. So I'd just like to ask really two questions. What consultation will there be, both at national level and in a more strategic level?Um and how in that consultation will the rural voice be heard?And as we now have a sort of a mayor for York and North Yorkshire, what were the relationship be of the mayor in this?Is he I don't see him.

I don't see mayors mentioned in this. So obviously, um, there is an answer to this of which I'm not aware. But what will the relationship of the mayor be to, um, producing answers to strategic, a spatial um plan. And I'd just like to echo Lord Lenz's request that we do the government do publish the responses to the National Planning policy framework, because obviously an underlying concern in all of this that we do not develop areas on the functional floodplain of zone three B.
16:04
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

O my Lords, um, I start with a declaring a relevant interest as a councillor on a Met Council, which will clearly be affected by. These changes. So um, in relation to the changes to the development of strategic plans during the course of the Planning and infrastructure bill, I did raise concerns not, not about the benefits of a strategic plan. But, but that covers a wider area than of one local planning authority, but of the way it is to be developed. So and this comes to the fore again, in this instance.

So the the first query is, is the who. Not what organisation, but who will be responsible for the plan. So in five three. It references a combination of principal authorities and combined authorities. So one of the concerns that I have is that these cover widely differing geographic and population sizes. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority covers 2.5 million people, whereas uh. The North York. Yorkshire combined Authority with a mayor has as just a million I think um uh, people.

So there is a very big disparity and that will have an impact on the, the way a wider strategic look at development across an area is considered, but it also has an impact on a engagement and involvement of both locally elected members and also residents who are going to be affected, uh, by, uh, the. The, the, the, the development of the strategic plan. So that's my first concern is who is going to be doing it. And it talks about a board, a strategic planning board.

Um, but if it's as undemocratic as the combined authority is, then I would have real concerns. Um. So coming on to that about a bit more about the who. So in combined authorities, we learned from the devolution bill. Uh, that mayors will be able to appoint up to nine, possibly ten. I can't remember escapes me. Nine I think um appointed people who will be responsible for different areas of the, the responsibilities of the combined authority and of the mayor appointed, appointed.

And my assumption is so may be the noble Baroness. The minister can put me right if I'm wrong. Is that those relevant to people. Are there, such as those in charge of transport?Uh, and as well as planning and infrastructure would be part of the decision making process. As part of this strategic planning board. Now. Me, I like democracy and I just. I'm very concerned that the plan will be created without due consideration of uh.

Locally elected people apart from the mayor, um, who was just one amongst many. So, uh. There is a lack of accountability to local residents who will be directly affected by any plan that is created. And I can tell you from long experience planning is one of the issues that really, um. Gets gets residents, concerned and involved and opposing, um, where necessary, uh, planning decisions. So I think. I am, that's a big area that I'm concerned about.

The second one is, is this. So in the current, um, fairly febrile and volatile nature of our politics, there is clearly a possibility of significant change of political leadership in these combined authorities. Well, there already was last year. So one question is this. So if there is a change of political leadership that wants to significantly change the strategic development plan, is that possible?Um. The third question is, is in regard to. Uh, local plans that local planning authorities and councils have already agreed.

Um, so they potentially have a 15 year lifespan. Uh, although have to be reviewed and, and, uh, uh, updated at every five year intervals. But nevertheless, the basic plan and the policies that underpin it are determined. So how does a strategic development plan sit with that if they are already in existence?Um. I think the noble Lord Lansley asked a similar question. Um, which one will override the other in this instance?The fourth issue that I have just want.

To understand a bit better is the, the examination of a sdz. So we have here at whatever it is, 3.75.7 um that the Lord Chancellor will make these rules. So hang on. That something that should be determined, for instance, in this sort of forum, that these would be the rules that will determine how a sdz will be examined. Um and uh, to not. Have that openly discussed and debated and agreed. Uh, puts a big question mark in my mind about it.

So when local plans are examined and inspected. Yes, the, the planning inspector is appointed by the government. But yes, there is there are opportunities for representations. Um by. Those concerned about particular elements of the plan. And that doesn't seem to be what is being suggested in the brief. Uh, mention here and by what the noble Baroness and the minister has, has said. Um and finally, I think is um the. One the minister said that local planning authorities would have must have regard as a standard planning phrase and be in general conformity to presumably.

That means that. Uh, local planning authorities and local planning committees can also, if they have a good sound reasons, disregard, uh, the decisions that are made at a strategic development plan level. Um, if not. I don't know why we have local democracy. So I. Although I'm in favour and I was in favour with, with the, uh. The previous iteration of strategic development, which was a regional level, I was in favour of that because I think it's very helpful to have a, a wide scheme, but, uh, there are a lot of questions around how this will operate and who will make the decisions that I hope the minister can put my mind at ease.
16:13
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Uh, thank you. Before I start speaking, I do have to declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Uh, which will no doubt at some point be affected by this statutory instrument. At the outset, can I say that we accept the general principle that consequential amendments are a necessary feature of major legislative reform?But going on, as we debated in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we remain concerned with the increasing centralisation of planning decisions. I think that was something that the noble Baroness Pinnock was raising, and strategic planning appears to be part of that strategy.

Moving decisions away from local councils and local people who know their area best. Now we agree with government that we need to get Britain building. We are not building enough homes. Infrastructure takes too long and costs are too high, and that will require a simpler and streamlined planning system that is clearer and more consistent. And the recently released Savills report on house building, which forecasts that only 839 000 houses will be built in the five year of the Labour government, compared to the target of 1.5 million.

I think just highlights that the system is not working now. Spatial development strategies, when done correctly, could offer the opportunity to ensure greater consistency and coordination over a wider area, particularly when it comes to infrastructure. But they do need to be built on local and community knowledge. They shouldn't just be top down, and I'd just like to refer to some of the evidence of the London plan, which is not auspicious. Far from being a high level document, it's a 526 page tome containing more than 100 separate policies, often in conflict with local policies, and has added complexity to the planning process, resulting in delay and additional cost, and giving the declining house building in London can be considered in many ways to be failing.

So can the noble Baroness. The Minister, explain how the government will ensure that the system remains bottom up, and that local councils and communities can genuinely lead and influence development in their area. But accepting the need for a wider coordination, can the Minister also explain how this will simplify the system and provide greater clarity and consistency, and in particular, that lessons from London are learnt?Secondly, at the Bill we repeatedly raised the issue of brownfield first and the Minister assured noble Lords that this would be the case.

How will government ensure that a brownfield, a brownfield first approach is followed through throughout spatial development strategies?How will government ensure that mayors, particularly in. Uh, mayoral areas based on a large city, do not take the easy option and focus building on greenfields rather than brownfield?And I think that's something that, uh, my noble friend was alluding to, uh. In North Yorkshire, the conservatives have sought to enshrine brownfield first into law, which the Labour government so far has resisted. So how will the government ensure that it actually happens in practice and not just in words, a particular concern, given recent announcements on local government reorganisation, which saw several proposals for cities expanding into their rural hinterland.

My Lords, there's a broader institutional concern about the manner in which planning reform is being implemented. We're dealing here with a system that is already complex, capacity constrained, subject to significant public pressure. In that context, the cumulative effect of repeated structural changes implemented through a combination of primary legislation and consequential secondary instruments, risks adding further uncertainty and lack of clarity. There is a case for just calming down and letting the system settle. Good legislative practice in planning form should prioritise clarity, stability and usability for local authorities and practitioners.

I would also like confirmation from the minister that these regulations do not go beyond what is strictly necessary to ensure legal coherence following the act, and in particular, they do not have the effect of expanding ministerial influence over local plan making or decision taking beyond the scope envisaged in primary legislation. Just like to follow up on a few of the the questions that my noble, uh, friends raised, Lord Lansley. About timetable. I think this is really important. I think there's a lot of, uh.

Misunderstanding, confusion out there as to exactly what is coming when and what does it mean?And secondly, on the issue of geography, what geography we're talking about. If we look at mayoral combined authorities, we have the very large London. We have some very geographically large Essex, Kent, Lincolnshire, but we also have some, relatively speaking, small, uh, noble. Lord Lansley raised Buckinghamshire. I could raise my own one of potentially Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes. How can something operate in.

A strategic sense over a very big area, which I can understand, but then also operate in the same manner over a significantly smaller area and smaller population?I think that needs some clarification. Or is there an implication that there may be a desire to combine some of these in terms of strategic spatial planning?Um and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering raised the the importance of the voice of rural area, and I particularly raised that in relation to the comments I made earlier of. We do not want to see the default presumption being built on green fields simply because it's easier.

We do need to have a brownfield first approach for those reasons. While we do not oppose these regulations in principle, I suggest the House should view them as part of a wider system change whose implications for local planning, autonomy, regulatory clarity and administrative burden will require continued scrutiny as implementation proceeds. My Lords, I'm grateful to the Minister for her explanation, and I look forward to her response to the many questions.
16:20
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Can I thank all members for the very considered contributions this afternoon, and I'm grateful to Most noble Lords for supporting the overall direction of travel in relation to strategic development strategies. Um, I hope that the committee does agree. The two minor amendments are appropriate. Um, and I will just try and answer as many of the questions as I can. Um, any that I don't answer, I will respond in writing. Um, the noble Lord Lansley um, I'm grateful for his broad support of the SDS.

Um, and I agree with him about subregional planning. He probably went through the same process with the East of England plan that I sat through for many months. Um, so I do think this pulling together of transport infrastructure and strategic planning into one place is really key to getting the growth. We all want to see. Um, the, the noble Lord asked me a number of questions. I'll try and take them in the order he asked them. This one isn't, but um, he asked me about whether the SDS will contain affordable housing.

The legislation is deliberately permissive so it can. If the board wishes specify levels of affordable housing within the plan. Um, he asked me and as did the noble Lord Jamieson, about a timetable for the implementation of SDS and strategic planning boards. We do intend to lay these sis in the autumn. I can't be any more specific than the autumn, but that's our intention. And the Strategic Planning Board regulations must be subject to consultation before being laid. So I think that probably picks up one of Baroness Pennock's comments.

So we anticipate that consultation will be after the summer recess. And once that's complete, we'll lay the sis. Um, the noble Lord Lansbury asked me about the publication of the NPF. Um, and whether the SDS overview will include clear requirements for the statutory requirements in that we do intend to publish the revised NPF in the summer. While we're considering responses to the consultation, I can't comment on its content, but the NPF can't change the statutory requirements for SDS as set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, and I think that's important.

So, um, in the act that we finally finished after some very late night sittings, we set out what an SPS is there to do. So it can't change that. But yeah.
16:22
16:23
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Noble Lord, for that comment. I will feed that back to the team. So it's not completed yet. So our feed his comments in um in relation to the planning policy sorry planning practice guidance for SDS. Once the NPF is published. Um I we will consider the need for planning practice guidance, but we need to publish the NPF first. So we'll have a look at that once the NPF is underway. Um, the noble Lord asked me about the group one and group two SDS areas and what the timetable was for them to submit an SDS, the period within which the Strategic Planning Authority needs to submit its timetable will be set out in regulations.

So we anticipate that most spas will be asked to submit a timetable within 90 days of the formal commencement of the SDS duty. So assuming that commencement is in the autumn, this will be, as the noble Lord rightly suggested in the early part of 2027. Um. Going on to the question about greenbelt and where changes to greenbelt boundaries may need to be considered, but the Local Plan has set the boundary of what happens if there's a disagreement. And I think Baroness Pinnock referred to this as well.

Local plans have to be in general conformity with any adopted SDS for the area, and that applies to greenbelt, as it does to any other aspect of an SDS. But of course, that will be tested at the Local plan examination. So general conformity does allow for some inconsistency, but not a completely different approach. So I suspect that that will get tested in examination processes. And it will be interesting to see where that falls. Um, in terms of the areas for uh.

Strategic planning boards. Um, the noble Lord Jameson echoed the noble Lord Lansley's question on this. We intend to respond to the the Strategic Development Strategy area consultation in the summer, and that will set out the areas that the government thinks should produce strategic development strategies where a board will be needed. The regulations to establish those boards must be subject to statutory consultation. We anticipate that consultation will happen after the summer recess and once that consultation has happened, the regulations have been made that the Strategic Planning Board can formally come into being, and that's when the geography finally gets confirmed.

Noble Lord Lansley asked me about Liverpool being well advanced and well done to Liverpool for cracking on with the job. Um, whether this will be adopted under the new MP and guidance. We understand that Liverpool SDS is likely to go out to consultation either late this year or early next year, and as such it will be subject to the policies in the updated NPF. Um, the noble Lord Bourne asked me a question about development corporations. He's probably heard me say I'm a big fan of development corporations, and we discuss them a great deal in the Planning and Infrastructure bill and in the English Devolution bill.

I can't answer specific questions around the Solent and the Thames Estuary, but I will reply to him writing on those questions if that's okay. Asks and. Actually, um, Baroness McIntosh and noble Lord Jamieson both asked me about rural representation. Um, as did Baroness Pinnock. Um, I think if I sort of explain the right to be heard at examination, it probably be most helpful. It's quite correct that unlike the position for local plans, there's no formal right for individuals to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy.

This is the same approach as for examinations into, for instance, the London plan. It is proportionate and effective that. That should be the case for strategic plans, but each SDS has to consider its whole area, both urban and rural. So the SDS area consultation proposed, for example, that York and North Yorkshire would do its own plan on which the mayor would lead um in practice, experience demonstrates that inspectors take considerable steps to ensure that a wide range of relevant interests and perspectives are heard during, uh, for example, the London plan examinations.

By way of illustration, the most recent examination of a spatial development strategy, which was the 2019 London Plan, was conducted over 12 weeks with a participant list extending to 27 pages, which I expect is why we ended up with a very extensive plan that Lord Jamieson referred to. The government's intention is that spatial development strategies operate as those high level documents, establishing the strategic framework within which the subsequent local plans, which are required to be in general conformity with them, are prepared. Importantly and in contrast to local plans, spatial development strategies don't allocate specific development sites.

It's appropriate that the formal right to appear is preserved for Local Plan examinations, while examinations of spatial development strategies remain proportionate to their strategic role. I agree with what the noble Baroness Pinnock said about people being very interested in planning and engaged in it, but my experience is they're much more engaged when you're discussing the site level, uh, stuff which. Is in the local plans rather than the more esoteric discussions around a strategic plan. Um, Baroness McIntosh asked me some further questions about the geography of SDS and what that should be.

The English Devolution White Paper sets out the criteria for sensible geographies, and that includes the principle that devolution geography should ensure the effective delivery of key functions like SDS. So where mayoral devolution arrangements already exist, it's proposed that these will be used as a basis for proposals for producing SDS. With the exception of the West of England Combined Authority. Given the discussions on North Somerset's place in the region where devolution arrangements don't yet exist. We propose to prioritise existing local consensus on geographies for working together, where proposals for devolution have previously been submitted to government, with full local agreement provided these meet the other sensible geography criteria, so scale populations over 1.5 million, where possible, to create genuinely strategic SDS public service, boundary alignment and ensuring no islands are created.

If a future devolution agreement comes forward on a different geography. Once the geography of SDS is are confirmed, then any SDS will have to be amended, reviewed or replaced to fit the new devolution geography. Of course, we have the ambition to align SDS and devolution geography, but we have to accept the devolution picture is still emerging. We do need to get on with strategic planning. So um, we may have to make changes in due course to that.
16:30
16:30
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Well, as I said, um, meeting that, uh, that category, those categories that are set out in the, in the English devolution bill is clear. We want to make sure they, they work as a spatial development strategy, and they have to meet certain criteria to do that. But we want to get on with this job. So we're putting this process in place to deliver it. Now, um, authorities, um, that are required to produce a spatial development strategy. There were a number of questions on that, particularly from the noble Baroness Pinnock.

Um combined authorities, both mayoral and non mayoral combined county authorities, both mayoral and non mayoral upper tier county councils and unitary authorities will all have the duty to produce spatial development strategies. And these authorities will be known as strategic planning authorities. And the government will also be able to group any of these authorities together. As the noble Lord Jamieson suggested, to produce a spatial development strategy jointly through a committee known as a Strategic Planning Board. In most cases, combined authorities or combined county authorities will produce an SDS for their area and upper tier county councils and unitary authorities will be grouped together under a strategic planning board.

However, some upper tier county councils may produce one individually and some combined county authorities or combined authorities could be grouped with an authority outside their area under a strategic Planning Board. Um, the noble Lord Jameson asked me specifically about brownfield land, and it's a question he's asked me a number of times. I will try again to answer the question. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the desirability of prioritising um development on land that has been previously developed as a matter that strategic planning authorities must have regard to.

And these regulations will be combined with the regulations setting out the procedure for the preparation of a spatial development strategy. So I hope that's clarified that issue. So I hope the committee will agree that it's considered these regulations, and I beg to move.
16:32
16:33
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

My lords, I beg to move that the committee consider the draft local government structural and boundary changes, control of disposals, etc.. Amendment order 2026. The statutory instrument was laid on the 14th of May 2026, and this order makes a small but important amendment to existing provisions governing key financial decisions, including land disposal and contracts by councils during periods of local government reorganisation. The government's programme of reform, set out in the English Devolution White Paper, is designed to transfer power out of Westminster and fix the foundations of local government.

A central part of that programme is local government reorganisation, moving from two tier structures to single tier councils that are simpler, clearer and more accountable to residents. The government's long term vision is for simpler structures which make it clearer who residents should look to on local issues, with more strategic decisions to support growth and improve public services. Delivering that vision requires not only structural change, but a transition process that is orderly, legally robust and protects the public interest. During reorganisation, existing councils continue to operate, while new councils are established, and it is essential that decisions taken in this period do not undermine the position of the successor councils.

The framework therefore includes safeguards set out in section 24 of the local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which enable the Secretary of State to issue directions controlling certain disposals of land and significant financial commitments in specified circumstances where a decision could affect the successor authority. Councils must obtain consent before proceeding, and this is typically from the relevant shadow Council. These controls ensure that significant decisions taken during the transition period do not adversely affect successor councils, with specific consents required for higher risk decisions and general consents, enabling routine activity to continue.

This order, made under section 29 of the act, makes a targeted amendment to how those safeguards operate. The framework requires councils to consider past disposals of land and contractual dealings when determining whether financial thresholds have been met, because the beginning of the aggregation period has remained fixed at 31st December 2006. This could require authorities to review nearly two decades of historic decisions. That was not the intention of the policy. The controls were designed to focus on recent and relevant activity in the period leading up to reorganisation, not to impose disproportionate retrospective requirements.

This order updates the beginning of the aggregation period to the 31st of March 2025, ensuring that the framework captures relevant activity without requiring unnecessarily extensive historic analysis, while leaving the underlying safeguards on disposals of land and contractual dealings unchanged. This is not a change of policy. The underlying safeguards remain unchanged. Rather, the instrument ensures that those safeguards function as originally intended, providing greater clarity and certainty in their application. It therefore maintains the balance between enabling councils that will shortly be abolished to continue to operate effectively while protecting the interests of successor councils and the public purse.

This amendment was initially identified through engagement with Surrey, but it has been tested with the wider sector, including through engagement with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the department's local Government Reorganisation Advisory Group, formed of senior representatives and experts from across local government. So it's not a Surrey specific fix, but a clarification that will apply across the broader reorganisation programme. This instrument supports legal robustness by reducing uncertainty in the operation of the framework and ensuring consistent and effective application across the reorganisation programme. I beg to move.
16:37
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

That this instrument.
16:37
16:39
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Thank you, my Lords. I also need to declare again that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, so I don't believe we're impacted by these changes at the moment. At the outset, I should make clear we understand the practical problems which the government is seeking to address through this instrument. It's sensible that where local government reorganisation is taking place, there should be safeguards to prevent outgoing authorities from making significant financial commitments that could bind or disadvantage the successor councils. The purpose of section 24 framework is therefore understandable.

However, while the measure before us may appear technical, it does raise wider issues and questions about the government's management of local government reorganisation and the haste with which that programme has been pursued. We're being asked to amend legislation because the existing framework left untouched for nearly two decades, no longer works in practice. One is bound to ask why this issue was not identified earlier. As part of the government's work on local government restructuring, and given government's determination to accelerate structural reorganization across large parts of England, what other unforeseen consequences will there come?Up as the as the process goes through.

Time and again we're told that these changes to local government restructuring will deliver efficiencies, stronger strategic leadership and better services. Yet councils themselves continue to raise concerns about complexity, cost and disruption. And against that backdrop, the statutory instrument feels less like a routine technical adjustment and more like another example of government being forced to amend the machinery. While the train is already moving. I'm also interested in the government's decision not to review the financial thresholds themselves. Section 29 provides the power to amend those thresholds.

Yet while the aggregation date is being updated from 2006 to 2025, the thresholds of 100 000 and a million remain unchanged. And in real terms, there is a significant difference between the value of £1 million now and the value in 2006. I'd also ask the question, given that this problem arises because a fixed date was used in the previous legislation, legislation, why were again using a fixed date in the current, uh, changes to the legislation, rather than a date that may be flexes with, say, vesting date of the councils concerned?There is also a question of consultant.

The government refers to discussions with Surrey County Council and with other sector experts. It would be helpful to know more about the extent of that engagement. None of these questions necessarily leads one to oppose the instrument itself, but they are relevant because this C is being presented as a practical fixture problem that has arisen during implementation. Parliament is entitled to understand how that problem emerged, whether similar issues may yet arise elsewhere and maybe should have been thought of earlier. My Lords, good government is not simply about having a destination in mind, it's also about ensuring that the route has been properly planned.

I think a comment that one of your colleagues frequently refers to about HS2, my Lords, I'd also like to raise a broader issue relating to government's programme of local government reorganisation and devolution. Ministers have repeatedly presented this as a coherent national plan. Yet from the outside it looks increasingly like a programme being rewritten as it goes along, timetables have shifted, elections have been postponed and then, in some cases restored. Local authorities remain uncertain about the final structures they are expected to implement. My Lords, that's simply not good enough.

This issue matters because we are not discussing an administrative exercise. We're discussing the democratic structures through which millions of people have. Elections are not an inconvenience to be moved around whenever they become awkward for government timetables. They are the foundation of democratic accountability. The government originally announced in December 2024 that six areas would join the devolution priority programme, with new mayoral institutions expected to follow at pace. Yet mayoral elections that were due to take place in 2026 have been pushed back in several areas until 2028, which I understand is all also the date of the mayoral elections of the non devolution priority programme.

We therefore find ourselves in an extraordinary position where the government is delaying democratic mandates because its own reorganisation programme has failed to keep pace with its own promises. Considering this, and given the increasingly fluid political situation nationally, including widespread, widespread speculation about the future direction of government and a new. Prime Minister on the horizon who the most likely contender has very strong views on devolution. Can the minister tell a House whether the current timetable for local government reorganisation and mayoral devolution remains intact?I understand if the Minister might need to write to me after the 16th of July.

For that reason, while I recognise the rationale behind this order and do not dispute the need to ensure the section 24 remains workable, I hope the Minister will acknowledge that this episode exposes wider weaknesses in this government's approach. If ministers are to continue pursuing large scale structural change in local government, they must do so with greater care, greater transparency and a greater respect for the practical realities facing local authorities on the ground. I look forward to hearing the minister's response.
16:45
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Pinnock and the noble Lord Jamieson for their responses to this statutory instrument. Um. I will try and respond to the questions in return. In, respect of council retention policies for paperwork. There's no plans to change them, and they're not affected by this s I. So, that's not included in this piece of legislation. Um, the noble Lord Jamieson um, I'll answer the general points that the noble Lord made. First of all, around local government reorganisation and the management of it.

Um he asked me first of all, what other unforeseen consequences can we expect?Well, they're unforeseen, so I'm afraid I can't. I can't identify them. If I could, I'd have a crystal ball. So, um, the timetable, uh, for devolution. Sorry for local government reorganisation hasn't changed. Um, I take his point about the elections, but that was due to changing legal advice. Um, the. I've spoken to the local government minister this morning, and as far as we're concerned, we are proceeding with the timetable, as we had originally set out.

So, um, we will be working through the process for the other 14 areas that haven't yet had their local government reorganisation announcements made, with the view to making an announcement on them before recess. Uh, that work is still going on and going ahead. And the in relation to the noble Lords question about mayoral elections, we did decide for very good reasons, that it was very important that we had the foundation authorities established and working properly before we put the mayoral elections, uh, before the mayoral elections. Go ahead.

So that's that was the rationale for that decision. But, um, the timetable, uh, is and the work is being done to the timetable that we set originally. I hope that's reassuring. Um, the noble Lord Jamieson asked me about the thresholds and why we aren't changing those thresholds. Thresholds. So they aren't changing. It's £100,000 for land disposals and certain non-capital contracts. And as he said, £1 million for capital contracts. The threshold and timing are established features of the section 24 framework, and those thresholds are intended to capture decisions that could have a material impact on successor authorities while allowing routine activity to continue without unnecessary delay.

The safeguards apply once the shadow authority exists, because that's the point at which there's a clear and accountable body able to give consent on behalf of the future Successor council. The instrument doesn't change the thresholds or the point at which the safeguards apply. It ensures they operate as intended in practice, and they are intended as kind of broad indicators of material financial decisions rather than precise limits. The key issue raised by the councils that we spoke to wasn't the thresholds, but how they operate in practice with the existing aggregation period start date, which was very onerous on councils.

Um, the. Noble Lord Jamieson asked me why the amendments needed. I think that also refers to the noble Baroness Pinnock's question. The issue was identified during implementation planning, including in Surrey, and it has been tested with the wider sector. Under the current framework. Um. It would be an extended historic period over which um authorities have to look when assessing whether thresholds are met. And that wouldn't be proportionate. And without the update councils could be required to review that over that long, long period.

And that could result in inconsistent application across areas and create the unnecessary administrative burden for councils. It may also risk introducing um further risk in. To the effective management of public assets and finances during reorganisation. And there's also a potential risk that historic land disposals could be rendered void and historic contracts become unenforceable. It would also make safeguards much more difficult to apply in practice. Under section 28 land disposals made in contravention of a direction of void and contracts entered into in contravention of a direction, are unenforceable, so we must avoid that happening.

The noble Lord Jamieson asked me to expand further on the consultation that was done as part of this process. Um, I think I set out in my introduction speech that we did test this through engagement with councils and with the wider sector. So we do have a sector advisory group that contains um experts in these, these types of areas. And obviously with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, so that we make sure that what we're doing is, is practical and sustainable. So I hope that that responds to the questions.
16:51
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Responses there. I just wanted to understand a little bit of clarity on three of the questions I asked. First is the impact of inflation. Uh, roughly speaking, inflation has almost had the impact of doubling the impact. So £50,000 spent in, in 2006 would be the equivalent of £100,000 now, or 100,000 as the equivalent of 50,000. Not quite, but in approximate terms. So that is a significant change. And if we're updating the regulations and the purpose in 2006 was to capture, you know, the important spend.

Well, it's now going to capture a lot more than the important spend, was the point I was trying to make. Uh, completely agree why it's it's being put don't don't have any issue with that. The second one was. One could argue a mistake was made in 2006 that, uh, we shouldn't have had a fixed date or it should have been updated in the interim. So I did ask why we weren't looking at a date that might relate to, say, vesting or something else, which might seem more rational.

I was also curious about the response on the timing of elections, and please correct me if I've got it wrong, because I may very well have. My understanding is that the elections for both the original six priority areas will be in 2028, as will be the 14, I call them the follow ons. The minister said. Well, that was in order to allow the foundation authorities to have the time to to set up and get organised. I appreciate the following. 14 aren't foundation, but they're going to be operating to a much tighter timetable.

That does seem a bit of an incongruity.
16:53
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Um. On the on the subject of the amounts, I do take his point about inflation. But as I said, these amounts are intended to act as broad indicators of material financial decisions, not precise limits. So I think it's it's relevant to keep the same amounts in place. Um, and then, uh, you know, it makes it a reasonable amount at which they have to be referred. And I think that's, I think that's a rational way of doing things. On his point around the date, I think this, um, if we didn't have a specific date that might complicate things in terms of the accountancy practices, but I will look into that and I'll come back to him on that point, if that's all right.

Um, the issues around the mayoral elections, um, the the decision was taken very clearly just to make sure we do have those authorities, the new authorities vested and in place and with a chance to establish themselves, they're delivering very key public services. There's a lot of work to do, as he's pointed out to me on many occasions, and I properly understand that point. Um, and then the mayoral, um, the mayoral elections will take place. Um, but we know it's a tight timetable, but to be honest, I mean, in my 30 years in local government, nobody's bitten the bullet and got this sorted out and it's time we got this.

Uh, the foundations of local government into a single unitary authorities so that everybody across the country has the same type of local authority. And that's why we are moving forward at pace with the timetable. So to conclude, this instrument makes a small but necessary technical amendment to ensure that existing safeguards on financial decisions operate effectively during local government reorganisation. As I said, it's been developed in response to engagement with councils and tested with local government representatives. So I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft order, which I commend to the committee.
16:54
16:55
None Portrait Speaker 9
-

It sure is a. De la
16:56
16:56
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Lords. I beg to move that the draft nuclear safeguards. EU exit and Fees. Amendment Regulations 2026, which will be. Before the House on the 23rd of April 2026, be considered, I want to briefly outline the purpose of nuclear safeguards and explain the proposed amendments to the Nuclear Safeguards Regulations. These regulations form the foundation of the UK's Civil Nuclear Safeguards regime, which enable us to meet our international obligations. These amendments are designed to refine and strengthen the UK's system.

Nuclear safeguards are a cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. They are accounting, reporting and verification processes that demonstrate nuclear material and facilities are not being diverted for military use, and safeguards are how we show the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community that civil nuclear material is being used as it should be, and isn't being diverted into military programs. The safeguard system is also central to building confidence for international nuclear trade and cooperation. These are distinct from nuclear safety and security. But of course, just as vital, for almost 50 years, the UK has committed to meeting our international obligations and supporting the international nuclear safeguards regime.

A strong, well-functioning regime sends a clear message that the UK takes its responsibility as a nuclear state seriously. Our current safeguards regime has been in place since the UK left the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, in 2020. It was designed to be equivalent in effectiveness to the previous regime. The nuclear Safeguards EU Exit Regulations 2019 set out operator requirements and confer functions on the office for Nuclear Regulation. As the UK's safeguards regulator. The amendments we're considering today are about improving how that regime works.

The proposed amendments are drawn from a statutory post-implementation review, which was carried out in 2023, and then a public consultation on the proposed amendments in 2025, and there are three broad categories of amendments, which I will cover briefly. In turn, the first covers the proposed removal of provisions related to the transition to the owner led regime, or those that do not apply to the UK's operational context. Their removal simplifies and brings greater clarity to the regulations. The second and largest set of changes is about improving operability and clarifying requirements.

The main change in this category is the move to using the IAEA design information questionnaires. Up until now, the UK has continued to use Euratom Design information reporting format and we are moving to the IAEA format format instead. This change will align the UK internationally and also support our civil nuclear sectors. International partnerships we are also changing some timelines for submitting information to the owner, including some reduction in the timelines for operators. For example, we are changing the timelines for submitting design information to the owner.

The UK is required to submit design information to the IAEA. E within 30 days and under the current regulations, the entirety of the 30 days sits with the operators. By dividing the timeline to 23 days for operators and seven for owner, the majority of time remains with operators, whilst the regulator now has five working days for their activities to meet the requirements. We are also updating some definitions so that they keep the UK aligned internationally. The final set of changes is smaller, but important for making sure the regulations are fit for purpose.

This includes provisions for offences where relevant, as established as an established final point of escalation, the Nuclear Safeguards Fees Regulations will also be updated to reflect owner activities added to the NSR 19, and we expect these costs to be minimal. In conclusion, these amendments will strengthen the Nuclear Safeguards regulations. This will enable a more efficient and effective delivery of the domestic Civil nuclear safeguards regime, ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations. At the same time, the changes will support our nuclear industry in its trade and operational activities, both of which, of course, are vital to our country's economic growth and energy security.

I look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say about the proposed detail.
17:00
17:00
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for setting out the purpose of these regulations. Nuclear safeguards and system for reporting, inspection and verification. That gives us gives the International Atomic agency and the wider world the confidence that our civil nuclear material is being used for peaceful purposes and is not being diverted or diverted into weapons programmes without a credible safeguards regime, the you cannot trade civil nuclear material, cannot operate its existing plants and cannot attract the international partners on whom our nuclear ambitions depend. The 2019 regulations established our domestic regime post-Brexit.

This instrument, some seven years on, does several things. It removes transitional provisions that were only ever intended to smooth the exit from Euratom. It tightens and clarifies the language operators must work within, introduces new offences to plug enforcement gaps. It adjusts reporting timelines to give the office for national Regulation more time to scrutinise what it receives and, most significantly, for our international standing. It transitions the UK from Euratom style basic technical characteristic questionnaires to. The IAEA's own Design information questionnaire format.

It also amends the associated fees regulations to put the owners cost recovery on a clearer statutory footing. On these benches. We recognise this is as an essential and overdue update to a globally recognised regulatory system, and we support it. We particularly welcome the removal of the Euratom transition provisions and the move to the IAEA's Design Information Questionnaire format as a sensible step forward towards international harmonisation that will ease collaboration with our partners and materially support the UK, US and global civil industry partnerships. Our support, however, should not be mistaken for an uncritical or entirely enthusiastic for the wider nuclear policy.

We continue to have some concerns about the delivery of large scale plants. We do recognise that nuclear is obviously a crucial part of our energy mix, and we are supportive of the move towards more small, small modular reactors. Turning to the detail, I have my apologies. I have several questions for the minister. If I might, um on the new offences. These regulations introduced criminal liability for non-compliance with particular safeguards provisions and for the failure to declare a change in facility type corrections to an oversight in the original 2019 regulations.

I really just wanted to ask the minister, the noble Lord, the minister, if I could, about this, this gap which feels significant in our enforcement regime and why that was allowed to persist for the seven years before being addressed here. I further wanted to seek assurance, just that the owner now has everything it needs in terms of both legal powers and operational capacity to pursue enforcement action, all the way to prosecution, where the gravity of a breach demands it on reporting timescales, the window for operators to declare design information changes.

Um, that's been set out by the minister. But I wanted to ask if the minister, minister could confirm that this tighter window will not place a disproportionate burden on the more than 130 qualifying facilities with limited operations. And as the Minister is well aware, obviously, we're talking about smaller scale university and smaller scale corporate kind of operations. On the transition to the new I a, E A forms, I welcome the government's decision following consultation feedback to extend the transition period for adopting the Design Information questionnaire from two years to three.

Can the Minister address a question that I personally feel hasn't had sufficient attention in the other place?And that's really. I wanted the minister just to say something about whether there are specific risks during the migration and the transition itself, because moving from one accountancy and control system to another is not obviously just an exercise that's done on paper. Um, this is a period during any transition when records may exist in two formats simultaneously, when staff are learning new systems, when the potential for gaps or mischaracterization is at its highest.

We're also see some new definitions in the s I as well. So could I just ask the minister what specific guidance the owner will provide to operators to ensure that no accounting anomalies fall between the two systems, and that the integrity of our nuclear accounting records is maintained throughout that?What is going to be a difficult transition period on record keeping?The instrument extends the retention period for operating and accounting records from five years to 30. Um, that's a big change in there.

And I noticed that the costs in the supporting documents were quite low, but actually keeping computer records for that long a period of time is again, quite a complicated exercise as computers become obsolete. I just wanted to ask that that wasn't putting too much burden and just check that that was I wanted to just say a question about extending those computer record keeping and that security of computer records over that, that long period of time. Um, finally on, uh. Repurposed facilities, the instrument introduces requirements for operators to notify the owner 200 days before a change of facility type.

And I really just want to ask the minister, given the government's, uh, policy ambition to rapidly deploy small modular reactors. I just wanted to ask the minister that the government's certain that these regulatory time changes are flexible enough that actually the they won't impact on the rollout and operation of small modular reactors. But to conclude, my Lords, we support this instrument. We see it as strengthening our safeguards regime. It brings us closer in step with our international partners, partners and helps guard against the unlawful diversion of civil nuclear material.

So we are fully supportive of this instrument.
17:07
None Portrait Speaker 11
-

My Lords.
17:08
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Minister, for coming to the committee to introduce these regulations, and I'm particularly pleased to be opposite him for the first time on, um, these issues. I hope we'll have many similar exchanges, um, in the years to come. Um, I'm glad to say on this occasion we are in agreement and there's very little that I can add to the um excellent contribution that has been made by the noble Lord Russell. Um a strong independent nuclear safeguard regime is vital for our civil industry, nuclear industry to function effectively.

However, the government must support nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry partners to ensure it's not placing unworkable burdens on the nuclear industry. And as the minister has introduced, the instrument implements most of the recommendations from the Post-implementation review in 2019, if I recall. So it's largely, um, a Conservative Party policy. Nuclear safeguards, EU Exit Regulations 2019, the current regime used to demonstrate that civil nuclear material is not unlawfully diverted into military use, is relevant, as is the Nuclear Safeguard Fees Regulation 2021, which regulates the fees payable by operators to the Office of Nuclear Regulation.

The Honor This instrument amends both to remove regulations related to the transition from Euratom, as both previous speakers have said, which are no longer applicable or do not apply to the UK context. And we agree with that. A new offence corrects an oversight. When the SR 19 was originally implemented relating to non-compliance with the requirements of the particular safeguards provisions, we also support that an offence has been added related to non-compliance with the new provision requiring operators to declare to owner whether there is a change in the type of facility, and it also ensures that the regulator has a sanctions regime for non-compliance.

The main change is the Minister has made clear to the committee is to replace Ewart Thomas basic technical characteristics. The PTC questionnaire, which assess how nuclear site operators account for their nuclear material with the IAEA's Design Information questionnaire, the Deq's. It also reduces the design information, changes reporting time. As the minister stated, from 30 to 23 days. He also stated that it requires operators to give the owner more notice of imports and exports from 4 to 7 days, and I believe for 7 to 13 days for exports.

Um, I may have missed that in the minister's comments, but I understand that's the case. Um, it was interesting to see um concerns over some of the changes that were made, um by nuclear site operators and other nuclear industry parties who were consulted. Um this includes changes to notification timings for the import and export of nuclear material with operators questioning why the owner needed more time to import this information to the IAEA and the adequate number of staff needed to fulfil accountancy and control plans for nuclear material, with operators concerned that this was not clear enough and having previously questioned the rationale for the plans themselves.

So maybe the minister will be able to comment on those. Um. In summary, the impacts of the costs, as I understand it on business, will be about 200 to £300,000. The transition period for changing forms from TCS to Deqs was lengthened, with the ONR still accepting BTC for the first year and Deqs for year two, and the notification timings for reporting design change, imports and exports also amended to give operators more time than originally proposed, whilst still increasing the time the regulator has to qualify.

Assure, quality, assure um. This instrument, my Lords, introduces changes largely supported, I think, by the consultees and initiated by the last government, as I've mentioned. Therefore, um we thank the Minister and are supportive of the proposals that he brought for the committee. Um, maybe I should just ask a question which is related to um his portfolio events of recent days have suggested that the energy bill may be delayed. Um, I don't imagine that the minister can possibly comment on that, but I would like to suggest to him that that will be regrettable.

Um, if so, because the Fingleton recommendations are really important. And I hope that if the minister is in a position to comment on that, um it would be very helpful to the committee if he could. So do so with that, I'm very grateful to the minister once again. Um and um, conclude by reinforcing my support for the recommendations that he's brought forward.
17:12
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Well, I thank, uh, Lord Russell and Lord Moynihan very much for the support and the useful additional questions. Um, and thank Lord Moynihan for his wish to be, um, opposite me for a long time. I can't make any guarantees on that particular issue, but, um, I do agree with the, with some of the points made which, which largely support what I said. As I said, these amendments really, I do think, strengthen our position and they make things things easier. Um, they will support trade and operations that I think are central to the sector's working.

And in answer to the question from Lord Russell, why there's this gap in closing the offences part, I think the answer is it needed a statutory instrument to do that. This is the statutory instrument to achieve that. And I think it's important that we are now closing those gaps. Um these amendments also remove what's been a long transition agreement, which really aren't needed anymore, given where we are domestically. And I think the industry has largely welcomed those. And by bringing our design reporting requirements in line with those of the IEA, I think we are making it simpler for both domestic and international new entrants to the market.

And that includes, to Lord Russell's point, the SMRs, which we think are crucially important for where we go next. Um, both, Lord. Russell and Lord Moynihan raised the question of operator concerns, and there's no doubt that the operators did express some concerns about the move. For example, to use the IAEA questionnaire so quickly, we listened to that, and we introduced a longer transition period to make that happen, give them a chance to familiarise themselves with the with the process and to develop this new reporting format.

And importantly, to the question raised as to what the owner does with this, the owner will work very closely with them to facilitate that change. And they've now got a year of the old system and two years in order to get the transition. Similarly, when operators noted concern about the timelines for reporting, and this is an important point that both the noble Lords picked up. Um, it was the case that there was no time allocated to the owner. So strictly speaking, the operators could go right the way up to day 30.

Hand the information over to the owner. They then had to get it in by day 30. Otherwise they were in breach of our international obligations. Initially, the proposal was to give half and half. We listened to the concerns and changed it. So the owner takes seven days, five working days and the operators have the rest. I think that's an appropriate and proportionate response to the concerns. Um, it's clearly important, as we've said, that the as a nuclear weapons state is particularly important that we demonstrate we comply with these safeguards and don't have any mechanisms to divert civil nuclear material for military use.

And I think this really strengthens our ability to do, do. So, um, in making these safeguards, we will be encouraging other states to follow suit that will support the wider non-proliferation regime. Two extra questions that were asked on the SMR rollout, which I've partially answered. I can absolutely reassure Lord Russell that this is high priority for us to get that moving. I do not believe that what's in here in any way, um, impedes the ability to do that quickly. And that leads on to the point that Lord Moynihan raised.

What are we doing about the Fingleton legislation that will be introduced in this in this parliamentary session?And we are committed to try and drive the Fingleton recommendations through to completion by the end of next year. As we said, when they were first introduced. So I hope that that answers the questions that both the noble Lords have raised and and that I provide the necessary assurances to those questions to allow you to approve the regulations before us today. I beg to move.
17:17
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page