Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 November be approved.

Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 December.

Motion agreed.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bird]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether new funding allocations to local authorities are sufficient to deliver the prevention commitments in the National Plan to End Homelessness.

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

My Lords, last week the Government launched their £3.5 billion national plan to end homelessness, a bold initiative informed by the voices of those with lived experience of homelessness and rough sleeping, as well as councils, mayors and homelessness organisations. Over £3 billion of that funding will go to local government through the local government finance settlement, with prevention at its core. The strategy is designed to tackle the root causes of homelessness alongside immediate action to help those experiencing homelessness now. It will bring an end to the current tension that forces councils to choose between investment in prevention and meeting temporary accommodation costs.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

With £2.8 billion spent on temporary accommodation in the last year by local authorities, forcing many of them towards bankruptcy, the £2.5 billion the Government have allocated, even if you look upon it as trying to cover the costs, is 28% short of the actual cost of temporary accommodation for local authorities. Are the Government going to do anything about allocating enough resources so that we do not have this situation where people are left on the streets because there is no temporary accommodation, and do not have the problem of our local authorities going bankrupt?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful for all the work the noble Lord has done in this area. The Government are very aware of the challenges councils face due to the rising demand for temporary accommodation; it has been growing in recent years and is a real challenge for them. We are committed to considering the best way to sustainably fund good-quality temporary accommodation and reduce reliance on poor-quality provision. To support this, we are working across government, including with our colleagues in the DWP, in the interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping to explore the impacts of subsidy rates on local authorities. This week we will announce the local government finance settlement—the first multi-year settlement in a decade—giving councils the certainty they have repeatedly asked for to enable more spending on prevention and less on crisis management. That is the answer to this in the long term.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the welcome national plan identifies newly recognised refugees leaving asylum support accommodation as being particularly vulnerable to homelessness, yet says nothing about the 28-day move-on period, although local authorities and voluntary organisations have criticised it as a key cause of homelessness because it does not give newly recognised refugees long enough to find independent accommodation. Will my noble friend therefore impress on the Home Office the importance of reverting to the 56 days it piloted and emphasise the importance of this to the Government’s homelessness strategy?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

What my noble friend says is indicative of the issues we have in this area of making sure that we work across government to solve some of these problems. The Home Office has committed to strengthening data-sharing processes with councils for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness within two days of a discontinuation of asylum support notification. This supports early intervention by enabling councils to commence homelessness assessments. We will continue to monitor the impact of all the policies, including refugee move-on, hotel occupancy, asylum accommodation costs, local community impacts and pressures on local authorities and public services. It is important that we work across government and with our partners to improve that move- on support and reduce the risk of homelessness.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, one of the groups hit hardest by homelessness has been young people. Many charitable groups, such as Centrepoint, are trying to look at a different size standard so that it can be developed at a lower cost. I want to be very clear that it is only charitable organisations. What work have the Government done to support this work to see whether it is viable?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We had some long debates during the planning Bill about the size of accommodation and the stepping-stone type of accommodation provided in some parts of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, initiated those discussions. We are still discussing those issues because they are very important, as the noble Lord says. Specific content within the homelessness strategy focuses on the issues of young people, building on the national youth strategy, and will give young people the skills, connections and opportunities they need to thrive, with a key focus on prevention of homelessness among young people. We want to develop a cross- government action plan with measurable targets to reduce homelessness, particularly among care leavers under 25. We are working on this. The noble Lord makes an important point about the size of accommodation. It is still under discussion, and I will keep him in the picture on that.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, there is a real issue around the allocation of funding for homelessness prevention. While the strategy helpfully recognises this and commits to some adjustments, we still have no published needs-based formula. When will we get one? Will it set out how rent levels, housing supply and market-measured pressures are weighted? Does the Minister agree that without this it is really hard to judge whether allocations are fair and transparent and genuinely reflect local need?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that we continue to work with local authorities in tackling this problem. Under the new strategy, every council will publish a tailored action plan alongside its local homelessness strategy, with local targets and key outcomes. That will feed into the national picture so we can make sure that we are targeting the funding where it most needs to go. The new formulas we have devised for the local government finance settlement, which will be published later this week, are focused on making sure that the money goes where the need is and where there is less ability to raise additional funds through council tax. We are working very hard on making sure that the funding goes where the need is, and we will continue to do that. With councils now being able to set their own targets on this, we will be able to feed those into some more national targeting.

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I welcome the continued investment of £185 million allocated to the rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment programme from 2026 to 2029. But what progress has been made towards this Government’s safer streets and opportunity missions to improve support and early intervention, particularly for children and young people who are struggling with the dual crises of substance abuse and experiencing homelessness? Is this work one of the factors being used to determine which additional councils will receive this new funding?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Two pieces of work are going on here around the homelessness strategy and the child poverty strategy. Having set up a Housing First scheme in my local authority when I was a council leader, I know it is very important that you do not tackle just one issue. The roof over the head is key but so is support for complex needs. That is why homelessness is such a complex issue—you have to tackle the underlying issues. Those issues can be drug and alcohol abuse, poor mental health, financial capacity, chaotic lifestyles or any combination of those factors. All these things have to be worked on at the same time, which is why it is crucial that we have the interministerial working group. It is working across departments to tackle all these issues together so that we can make a real impact on homelessness.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, homelessness is a scandal in all parts of these islands. Is there not more scope for taking unused or underutilised buildings within local or central government and using the capital value of them to release the funds necessary to modify them and find an urgent answer to a problem that, at Christmastime, we should all be aware of?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord about the scandal of homelessness. That is exacerbated in the wintertime. Of course, we want to see both more homes and more buildings generally brought back into use. The Government’s strategy on delivering more housing is looking at this from a number of different angles. Local authorities already have a wide range of powers available to help tackle long-term empty homes. We are committed to empowering their use. We outlined in the English devolution White Paper the intent to strengthen the ability to take over the management of empty homes. We will review how effectively social housing providers use their properties. This is really important. There can be nothing more demoralising if you have not got anywhere to live than to walk along streets and see empty homes. We have to tackle this; we were left with an absolute crisis and this Government are determined to make a real difference in this area.

Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Andy Roe, who has been leading the work to improve the performance of the building safety regulator and whose peerage was announced on 11 December.

The establishment of the building safety regulator was the most significant reform of the building safety regime in decades. The building safety regulator has removed significant risk from the system and placed residents at the heart of housebuilding. The regulator is an important and non-negotiable part of our built environment, particularly as we deliver 1.5 million homes and accelerate the remediation of unsafe buildings.

The BSR was first established within the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE provided invaluable leadership and experience during the establishment and early operations of the BSR. It is now time for a new phase for the BSR. In June, my department announced reforms to the regulator, including investing in strengthened and dedicated leadership for the BSR; operational improvements, including the creation of a new innovation unit to improve the processing of gateway applications; and bolstered, long-term investment in the capability of the BSR and its capacity to work with industry. Alongside this, we announced the intention to move the BSR out of the Health and Safety Executive, establishing it as an arm’s-length body of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is the specific purpose of these draft regulations.

These regulations set up a new arm’s-length body sponsored by MHCLG that will exercise the functions of the building safety regulator, as established under the Building Safety Act. The regulations transfer the functions of the building safety regulator from the Health and Safety Executive to this new body. The provisions of these regulations will come into force on 27 January 2026.

The regulations enable the smooth transfer of powers so that the BSR has the legal basis to continue to perform its functions without interruption. They include transitional provisions to cover the period where staff and services will move over in stages from the HSE to the BSR. The regulations provide that the BSR will maintain its operational independence, with its own powers, strategic plan and programme of work, as outlined in the Building Safety Act. This move does not change the functions of the regulator or the ministerial powers and responsibilities set out in the Building Safety Act.

This change will support the building safety regulator for the coming years, strengthening accountability and providing a singular focus and dedicated leadership for building safety regulation. Importantly, this is also the first step towards establishing a single construction regulator, a key recommendation of phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. The new body for the building safety regulator will form the basis of the single construction regulator. The regulations will make sure that the building safety regulator continues to deliver its statutory functions under the Building Safety Act, while leading it into a new era. This will provide the foundation for a stronger, more accountable system that prioritises safety while supporting innovation across the built environment.

I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in congratulating Andrew Roe on his peerage. The experience that he will bring to your Lordships’ House from London Fire Brigade and the building safety regulator will be enormously welcome.

This instrument was debated in another place last week, on 10 December, and it completed its consideration in 12 minutes. On 11 December, the Industry and Regulators Committee produced its report, headed Building a Better Regulator. Within that report is a chapter on exactly the subject that we are debating this afternoon—namely, the single construction regulator—and it gives the background to the decision to which the Minister referred: the need to have a single construction regulator. It goes on to say that witnesses were broadly supportive of the proposal for the single regulator, with several suggesting that the current system was “fragmented”.

However—and this is the point that I want to make in this very short intervention—there were notes of caution. The Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists argued that

“it is more important that these functions be delivered effectively, than that they be delivered by a single body”.

The institute suggested that the priority should be addressing current regulatory challenges rather than merging functions. Philip White questioned whether this was the right time to establish it and, as with the BSR’s move from HSE to a body within MHCLG, he argued that the organisational change would lead to “disruption”, while suggesting that the regulator would do its best to

“keep business going as usual”.

The Select Committee listened to that argument and to the argument for going straight ahead, and concluded, in paragraph 106:

“We support the Government’s broad proposal to establish a single construction regulator. However, we heard concerns that organisational changes could distract from the immediate imperative of improving operational performance. The implementation of this further organisational change should wait until the BSR is delivering its building control decisions within statutory timeframes”.


As we know, that is not what it is doing, so the question that I want the Minister to answer is: why is she going ahead, it seems, in defiance of a very clear recommendation from a Select Committee? I appreciate that it reported last week, after the instrument had been laid, but none the less it is a clear recommendation that we should not go ahead in January. I wonder how the Minister would respond to that clear recommendation from a unanimous report by one of your Lordships’ Select Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

The SI must be judged against that reality, and doing so shows that it is still unclear that the Government have grasped the full scale of the problem. We will not oppose these regulations, but nor can we pretend that they resolve the crisis in front of us. The country needs homes, growth and a regulatory system that is safe, swift and effective. I hope that the Minister will address the concerns I have raised and, more importantly, that the SI marks not the end but the beginning of the serious reform that the system so urgently needs.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short but interesting debate. Of course, a number of judgments always have to be made about the right time to take action. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is quite right to say that this builds on the work of the last Government. We all want the same thing here: we want the homes that people live in to be safe and for people to feel confident that the buildings they live in are safe.

I will pick up some of the points made. All three noble Lords who spoke raised similar points. I will start with the question of whether the transition to the new BSR governance arrangements will disrupt operations, because it is important. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned that undue disruption should be avoided, and I completely agree with that. The new team at the BSR is fully committed to this change and preparing for it. Maintaining a strong focus on operational delivery is its real priority. The plans to move the BSR into a new body within MHCLG are designed to have the minimal impact on current operations. Improvements in the BSR’s performance have been under way since August. Significant numbers of applications have been cleared, and new operating models are delivering dramatically reduced processing times. I think we are all very pleased to see that. It is right for the residents who are on the end of this, but it is also right for the industry, which has been waiting for this progress.

The noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Young, both asked why we are going ahead with this now. It is very important that we make this commitment now to move at pace on implementing the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry. We are taking early steps to prepare for regulatory reform by supporting the BSR to move into this new phase of its operations. The move to a new body accountable to MHCLG will deliver a dedicated focus for building safety and strengthen accountability to Ministers and Parliament, which is important. It also marks an important milestone towards our commitment to a single construction regulator. I do not think there is any disagreement in the industry that that is where we need to get to.

We are grateful for the very thorough report from the Industry and Regulators Committee on the building safety regulator. We are carefully reviewing it. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, it came out only on 11 December, so we need a bit more time to consider it. We will carefully review it and provide a full response to the committee early next year in line with the required timelines. I know there are notes of caution in the report about effectiveness, rather than a single body, but I know that the whole team is dedicated to achieving this without an interruption in performance, and with the performance improvements we have already seen. That will start the process towards a single regulator, which is important, but it is also important that it does not distract from operational performance.

I will give a brief outline of some of the performance improvements that have happened. Between 1 September and 24 November this year, a record 40 new-build applications were processed from the previous model case load, with the majority approved, allowing construction to begin on 10,000 homes. Cases received in recent months are being handled by the new innovation unit, which has dramatically reduced decision times by 20 or more weeks, compared with the previous peak of 38 weeks for approved new-build decisions. That is a dramatic improvement. Across all application types, overall performance also continues to improve, with a record 578 cases closed since August. Of course, we will continue to monitor this very closely.

Cases received in recent months are being handled by the new innovation unit, and that removes the reliance that the BSR had had on dispersed expertise. The innovation unit has dramatically reduced those processing times: as I said, by 20 weeks or more. Quality applications are essential to ensure that projects can progress. This is another area where there is a lot of dialogue between the BSR and the industry, and it has run webinars and sessions with developers to help them to understand what is needed by the BSR. That is a mutual dialogue. The BSR is continuing to support industry leaders; it is publishing guidance for applicants. But, of course, as we would all want it to say, it does not want to compromise on safety but wants there to be an understanding of what the expectations are.

We hope that moving the BSR to its own body will improve operations: the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this. It will create clearer lines of accountability and allow the operational flexibility that comes from the BSR being its own specific organisation. I hope that will build on the record progress we have already seen since the changes made in June.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the shortage of specialist fire and building inspectors, and some of the other specialisms that are required. We recognise the overall pressures on the building control system and on fire engineering capacity, which is why we have established the independent building control panel and the fire engineering advisory panel to look at the underlying issues and report back in the new year, so that we can fix the system as a whole.

We will work with the independent panel, the BSR and the wider building control sector to establish a shared, long-term, financially sustainable vision for building control services, so that they are able to provide assurance, inspection and enforcement activities that support housebuilding, cladding remediation, decent homes, net zero and social infrastructure ambitions. We have provided £16.5 million to support the recruitment of registered building inspectors to backfill those supporting the BSR and continue to look at options to grow the overall sector.

The BSR has also enabled certain class 2-registered building inspectors to take on some of the less complex, higher-risk building work, freeing up class 3-registered building inspectors to focus on new builds and remediation. A total of 125 cladding workers will be upskilled through the launch of the Construction Industry Training Board’s rainscreen facade installer training. I thank the Construction Industry Training Board for playing a strong hand in supporting work on this. Each year by the end of this Parliament, 100,000 construction workers will be recruited and will be overseen by the Construction Skills Mission Board. Across the board, maintaining the performance is key to this. Starting to move towards a single regulator is the right move to make now. We need to keep an eye on the performance and make sure that it is maintained.

In conclusion, the Government are committed to ensuring the safety of all residents. The building safety regulator has overseen a fundamental change in the built environment, and ensures safety is at the heart of housing. These regulations will enable the smooth transfer of the regulator from the Health and Safety Executive to its own body. I hope the Committee will welcome these regulations.

Motion agreed.

Business Improvement Districts: Town Centre Renewal

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests.

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

My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I answer a Question from someone with as much experience in the subject as my noble friend. I thank him for the work he has done on BIDs across London, supporting the mayor to deliver 50 of them, and particularly for his work on the Camden and Euston BIDs.

This Government recognise the important role business improvement districts can play in supporting local growth and regenerating our high streets and town centres. In the Pride in Place Strategy, published on 25 September, we committed to raising the standards of BIDs by making them more transparent and accountable, consulting on the ballot process and legislating to expand property owner BIDs outside London. Further details will be published in due course.

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. Does the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill offer an opportunity to strengthen and expand the role of business improvement districts within the devolved economic development frameworks, so that they can play a fuller part in accelerating town centre renewal? Within this, do the Government intend to give property owner BIDs, which my noble friend has already alluded to, a distinct and autonomous status separate from occupier BIDs to support more effective high street regeneration?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

BID reform is not included in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. However, the Pride in Place Strategy included a commitment to give property owners a formal role in shaping local priorities by expanding property owner BIDs outside London as soon as parliamentary time allows. Landlords will be able to work with councils, tenants and communities to create thriving high streets and support growth across the country. We are aware of calls for property owner BIDs to operate separately from occupier BIDs and the policy is currently being refined, working with the sector. Further details will be published in due course.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the hospitality sector is the backbone of town centres. A 5% cut in VAT for hospitality businesses would give such a boost to our high streets. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have provided a great deal of support for small businesses, including those on our high streets. The Chancellor announced some steps in relation to business rates in the Budget recently. There are a number of steps in our small business plan to support those small businesses which operate on our high streets, including helping them to address their costs and constraints, creating a licensing regime that supports the growth of hospitality and night-time economies, and enabling them with local collaboration and capacity building, as well as addressing crime and anti-social behaviour on our high streets, which we know is a blight on those small businesses.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge how important culture in the round is in this context? Has she seen the report Improving Places, produced by the Mayor of London, the Arts Council and King’s College London, which details, through case studies, everything from supporting artists’ studios to wider community events? This is so important for energising our cities and towns, and being an essential part of their social fabric.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Earl. I have not seen the report he refers to, but I will take a look at it. I am sure, as we discuss the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, that we will have lots of discussion about how to support communities as they promote arts and culture in their areas. As the noble Earl is aware, in the Bill we are extending the powers for local groups to register assets of community value and giving them a longer time to take the necessary steps to empower them with a community right to buy. We are taking those steps, and we understand the importance of those cultural assets on our high streets and in our towns. As we discuss this in the Bill, I am sure the noble Earl will work with us to develop it further.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about the hospitality sector, is the Minister aware that pubs are a vital part of town centres and urban regeneration? So why did the Chancellor persecute pubs in her Budget, so much so that hundreds are now banning Labour MPs from going into them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I have already said, the Chancellor announced a number of steps to support our high street businesses as part of the Budget process, including steps on business rates. We are all focused on making sure that we do all we can to support the hospitality industry, including the licensed trade, and we will continue to do so. I am sure that, as those steps begin to take hold in our communities, we will see the hospitality industry and the licensed trade right in the heart of our town centres, as they always have been.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My noble friend the Minister will recognise that we have to reinvent the high street. We recently had a Built Environment Select Committee report on this, which set out a number of different policies through which this can be done. One of the most successful and easily within reach is to make sure that we have more public services, including diagnostic centres and housing offices. People are now almost inevitably directed to digital centres for those things, yet they are desperately keen to talk to people instead. Having argued with my own local council about bins recently, I know how relieved I was to talk to somebody who actually knew what a bin was. All this can be done easily, and it would revitalise the high street in a way that would benefit community members of all ages.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. One of the benefits of local councils is that they do know what bins are—we are very familiar with that. I agree with her about the presence of both the public and private sectors in our public spaces. When I took part in the regeneration of my own town centre, we were very keen to make sure that we made best use of the public buildings there to generate footfall, while also encouraging the private sector to do the same for buildings with a huge diversity of uses. We know that there has been a visible decline in high streets, so we need to turn around that trend by fostering vibrant town centres and making sure that there are amenities, services, green spaces, a cultural offer and high-quality infrastructure.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

It is nonsense for the Minister to say that the Chancellor has helped the hospitality industry. The industry is up in arms because the Chancellor has increased the costs of employment and of the goods it sells, thereby damaging the sector considerably. To say that, somehow or other, her Budgets have helped is frankly not true.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Chancellor is committed to making sure that our small businesses are supported. As I said, we have produced our small business plan, which has a huge number of measures to help small businesses. We continue to work with the small business sector to make sure both that we find out what is getting in the way of it developing and that we smooth the path for the improvements it wants to see.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, has the Minister considered the significance of historic church buildings in city centre revitalisation? In my diocese, for instance, the recent renewal of St Mary Magdalene Church in Newark has not only repaired the grade 1 listed building but significantly developed the town’s cultural and economic vitality. There is uncertainty about the future scheme for VAT relief for listed churches, and the cap introduced last year affected long-planned projects around the country. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the impact of that and of continuing the scheme beyond March next year without the cap?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I greatly value the role played by religious buildings from all denominations in our public spaces, and the right reverend Prelate was right to refer to some of the development that has taken place. The Pride in Place Strategy sets out how we will deliver £5 billion over 10 years to 244 neighbourhoods, which means that our communities can take part in developing their neighbourhoods in a way that is right for them. We will deliver £20 million of funding and support to be spent by local neighbourhood boards, and we are encouraging all members of the community, including community organisations, to get involved with those boards to drive local renewal. We will then have a separate pride in place impact fund, which will deliver a cash injection of £150 million to an additional 95 places, to be spent to improve high streets and community spaces.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, although business improvement districts work hard to revive our town centres—for which we thank them—many of them face tightening fiscal environments, despite the previous answers from the Minister. Business rates are rising, employers are dealing with higher national insurance contributions and the freeze in personal tax thresholds compounds pressures on local workers—and this coupled with costly local government reorganisation. Do the Government believe that this combination of rising costs and administrative upheaval is helping or hindering town centre renewal and local growth? What assessment have they made of the impact of these measures on our town centres?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The local government reorganisation that is taking place will create more resilient and stronger local councils, which will be able to support their communities with the suite of activity that we have provided in the pride in place funding, to make sure that they are developing and that the community spaces they value are being supported and developed in a way that is right for them. Local government has been absolutely denuded of funding over the past 14 years, so I will not take any lessons on how to support local government from the Tory Benches in this House. It is really important that we get local government on a firm footing with its funding, so that it can support the local communities that have felt that their high streets have been neglected for far too long.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 33C.

33C: Leave out lines 7 to 9

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on accepting such a sensible amendment. She was kind enough to write to me about non-hazardous reservoirs. She said in that letter that the regulations and guidance will be kept under review. I urge her to use her good offices to ensure that both Houses will be able to review that. I once again record my huge disappointment that the non-hazardous reservoirs legislation will not come into effect before 2028, which is far too late, given the impact. Reservoirs are operating below capacity already, and the deficit we will face in Yorkshire over the next year especially is deeply regrettable.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. The question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is possibly out of scope of the Motion before us, but I am always happy to meet with her and discuss this further. She has a detailed letter from me today explaining the Government’s position.

I will very briefly address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is vital that, in exercising democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible—as I know she knows only too well—by not revisiting the same decisions and focusing on applications which require member input. The Government want to make sure that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment to resolve more applications more quickly in the service of residents and businesses, and that our planning professionals are fully supported in their role, with their skills and experience put to best use. I know she will be more than familiar with all those issues.

This will be my final time at the Dispatch Box speaking on this Bill. I am not going to say “thank goodness”, but we have had some very long discussions and sittings. I once again place on record my thanks to all noble Lords who have engaged with the Bill and the department through the Bill’s passage. The open and robust nature of our debates has undoubtedly strengthened the Bill.

In particular, I extend my heartfelt thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Roborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the time they have given to engaging so thoughtfully on this critical legislation. I also thank all the civil servants and the staff of the House, who have sometimes had to work very late on the Bill. I very much look forward to working with noble Lords as we take forward the implementation of the Bill, which will be a major step in the Government’s reform programme. The House should be under no doubt that we intend to move quickly over the coming months so that we can realise the full benefits of this legislation.

Motion A agreed.

Local Elections

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, three weeks ago, in this Chamber, the Minister assured the House that the Government intended to go ahead with all local elections in May 2026. What has changed in just three weeks? Were local government and the Electoral Commission consulted on these changes?

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. All local government elections that are scheduled for 2026 will go ahead unless there are exceptional circumstances. These elections, which are inaugural elections for four new mayors in the areas concerned, have not taken place before, and my colleagues have taken the opportunity to reflect on the most effective way of ensuring that those mayoral institutions are best placed to deliver.

We know that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. Moving forward, we are seeking to facilitate the establishment of those foundational strategic authorities to build the local capacity and collaboration that is needed ahead of accessing mayoral powers. We think that this will make them stronger in the long run and make sure that those authorities are built on firm foundations. That is why the decision has been taken to have those mayoral elections in 2028. My colleague, Minister Fahnbulleh, spoke to all local authorities on 3 December.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the move to compulsory unitary authorities, at the same time as creating mayoral authorities, is clearly causing confusion and delay. Cancelling elections denies electors their fundamental right. Councillors remaining in office for seven years when elected for a four-year term is simply not acceptable. Can the Minister set out in detail, in writing if necessary, a clear timetable going forward for all those authorities affected?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We must not conflate the two things. The devolution programme, which is working at pace, and the local government reorganisation process are running side by side, but they are not the same thing. That is why the decision has been taken to postpone mayoral elections in the four priority areas until 2028. The other two areas in the priority programme will have their mayoral elections in 2027, as they had already requested and as had already been decided. On other elections taking place, elections due in 2026 in county councils in those areas concerned will take place. Three of the areas are elected by thirds anyway, so they will have their elections as usual, and the district council elections that are due to take place in 2026 and 2027 will take place as scheduled.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is far better to get the structures of local government right and produce good-quality public services than it is to become overly obsessed with the cancellation of elections? Obviously, cancelling elections is never highly desirable, but all Governments have had to do this from time to time when faced with the prospect of reorganising local government and trying to improve what it delivers.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend, and I am slightly puzzled about the giggling from the other side of the Chamber, because this is an important lever in devolution for delivering growth and prosperity for our communities. We want to bring local transport back into public control to make people’s daily commutes easier, tailor local skills and training to employers’ needs so that people can get good jobs, and drive the regeneration of our local areas so that people feel proud of the places they live in. In order to do that important work, we need established local unitary authorities as the component parts of a strategic authority. That is why the decision has been taken to get those authorities set up properly. Funding will be available to them to start the work, and then the mayors will be elected in 2028.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to a pattern of unitary government by the next election in 2029. If these mayoral elections are to be delayed until 2028, what is the pattern for the rest of the unitisation in the remainder of this Parliament? What steps will be taken to make sure that equality of electoral representation, which in the shires is about 9,000 electors per councillor, is equated in London, Birmingham, Manchester and the mets, where it is currently 3,000?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the programme of local government reorganisation outside of the priority programme is proceeding at pace. We have received proposals from all the areas that were invited to put in their proposals by 28 November. We are now out for consultation, which has already started, and we will make announcements on that by March next year. The timetable for that further devolution and local government reorganisation will be announced, and the timetables will come forward then. I pay tribute to all my former colleagues in local government, who have worked together in a fantastic way to pull together these proposals. Some of them have told me that it has been a positive experience, which is good to hear. It is good to see them working together in such a collaborative way.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does my noble friend, with her long and distinguished experience of local government leadership, agree that, all too often, major local government reorganisations take longer than anticipated, cost more than anticipated and deliver fewer savings than anticipated? With that knowledge, which I am sure she is aware of in approaching her current duties, will she at least undertake to keep the House informed of any cost implications in extending the period of office of existing local authorities and any other associated costs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. I am always willing to come before the House and explain the impact of our programmes on local government. We remain committed to extending devolution to all corners of England. Under the last Government, we had a patchy and inconsistent approach, which meant that some areas were moving forward quickly on this and others had not even started the journey. Our commitment is to extend that devolution to all corners of England. We confirmed on 4 December the long-term funding offer for the six areas on the devolution priority programme, and we have committed close to £200 million collectively per year for 30 years to those new mayoral strategic authorities—some of that funding will be released earlier. This is really important. In my long experience in local government, we have put off these decisions around local government for far too long, and we have ended up with local government that is not sustainable for the long term. It is time to change that now, and I am committed to doing that. I am happy to report back to the House on how that is going.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I declare an interest in that the Green Party candidates were already working hard in these four elections and at least two of them had a good chance of winning next year. The MHCLG has said that Ministers still intend to lay the statutory instruments for the creation of the four mayoral strategic authorities as soon as possible to allow an interim period of preparation before the delayed mayoral elections. These areas will, at that time, have access to some powers, functions and funding. Will the Government clarify what this means in practice and what powers and functions will be available during the interim period?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, I am very happy to do that. The strategic authorities are being set up and we will have no delay in laying the statutory instruments—it is very important that those statutory instruments go ahead as quickly as possible. Those mayoral strategic authorities will have a number of functions available in the interim period to their mayoral election to make sure that they are working to encourage the investment that we all want in their areas. I will write to the noble Baroness with the detail but, just to run through quickly, they will have a general power of competence; a duty to develop a local growth plan; power to pay grants to constituent councils; power to borrow to an agreed cap; adult skills function powers; a health improvement and health inequalities duty; functions to acquire land, provide housing and build infrastructure; and responsibility for public transport and local transport planning. There is a lot for them to be getting on with.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, when we discussed these elections the other day, the Minister, for whom I have great respect, suggested that I was dancing on the head of a pin. I am a little surprised that, only a few days later, she should be coming forward and dancing on the head of possibly a very different pin. Does she agree with the comment in the other place from the Labour MP for Oldham West, who said

“we need to be better than this”?—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/25; col. 1166.]

Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith. They have put aside self-interest and differences and have done everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent. They reasonably expected the Government to do the same. Why have the Government not done the same?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my honourable friend in the other place for all the work that he did in laying the ground for this local government reorganisation and the devolution programme. He is very committed to it, as I know only too well, having worked with him very closely. However, it was right that, when the new team came in, they took a step back and had a good look at this. I do not think that I am dancing on the head of a pin in terms of elections. All the elections that were due to take place in 2026 will take place; these are four inaugural elections for new mayors. It is right that we build that strong foundation of those unitary authorities before we go ahead with the mayoral elections.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, I first extend my thanks to the many noble Lords with whom I have already spoken about this Bill. I am grateful for their engagement with this very important legislation. I know that a number of noble Lords have been closely engaged in delivering front-line services over the years, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those in this House who have taken part in that. We know that our residents greatly value the services that impact their daily lives. This whole Bill will bring that decision-making closer to the areas and communities that it impacts.

This Government were elected on a manifesto to deliver change. We are determined to transform our economy and our country through a decade of reform that delivers better public services and growth in every community and every corner of our country. Many hard-working communities that are the backbone of our economy have been neglected for far too long. They have seen good jobs disappearing, their high streets in decline and the dream of a decent home pushed even further out of reach.

Rebuilding these foundations is central to this Government’s mission, but we will not achieve our goals unless we fundamentally change the way our country is run. That means handing power back to local people, who know their areas best, so they can make decisions on what really matters to their communities. This is what the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will do—drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. The Bill will make devolution the default setting. It will give mayors new powers over transport, planning, housing and regeneration; rebuild local government so that it can, once again, deliver good local services that people can rely on; and empower local communities to have a bigger say in shaping their local area.

Strategic authorities are at the heart of this change. The Bill is creating strategic authorities as a new category of authority in law. They will make it easier for local leaders to work together over larger areas to drive through big, pro-growth projects such as integrated transport networks and housing. Crucially, the Bill will give new strategic authorities powers to pilot and request new functions, with government having a duty to respond to requests by established mayoral strategic authorities. Strategic authorities will operate at three levels: foundation, mayoral and established mayoral, and the Bill will define the powers and responsibilities of each of those levels.

Working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, mayors will drive forward the delivery of people’s priorities, igniting growth and unlocking opportunities for their local area. That is why the Bill will give them wide-ranging new powers in areas such as transport, planning and economic development, which have a real impact on people’s lives. For example, mayors will be able to intervene in strategic planning applications to unlock housing, and there will be powers for all strategic authorities to license shared cycle schemes so that they work for everyone and we do not see bikes strewn across all our pavements.

The Bill will also see more mayors take on police and crime commissioner functions and become responsible for fire and rescue authority functions, allowing them to take a joined-up approach to improving public safety. They will also be able to appoint commissioners to support them as their responsibilities grow, similar to the way this works in London.

The Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of the Government’s ambition and we have already demonstrated how seriously we take mayors’ rights to request new powers. We announced at the Budget that mayors will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy, and we are consulting on whether to also grant this power to foundation strategic authorities. This is a ground-breaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy. This Government are committed to giving mayors the tools they need to drive growth and deliver for local people.

None of this reform can be achieved without strong local government. Councils are the bedrock of our state. They are critical to delivering local public services that people can rely on, but they have been neglected for too long. The Bill will help rebuild local government as a “fit, legal and decent” foundation of devolution. It will establish the local audit office to help fix the broken, fragmented local audit system—nobody who has been in local government over the last few years will pretend the audit system is working properly.

We will also reform local authority governance by requiring councils with a committee system to move to a leader and cabinet model or, otherwise, undertake and publish a review on the decision, while putting a stop to new local authority mayor roles being created. This change will streamline decision-making across all councils, making it easier for people to understand how their council is run, while also respecting local democratic mandates where the committee system was adopted more recently following either a council resolution or a public referendum. In those cases, we will allow them to continue for the period that was voted for.

The Bill will also give the Government the tools to deliver local government reorganisation across England, resulting in better outcomes for residents and savings which can be reinvested in public services. I know that noble Lords have raised concerns about the powers we are taking in the Bill to incentivise local government reorganisation. To be clear, reorganisation is a crucial part of the Government’s mission to fix the foundations of local government, creating unitary councils that can deliver the high-quality services that all our residents deserve.

I assure noble Lords that we are fully committed to working in partnership with local areas. Our long-standing position remains: we will always seek to work with local areas on proposals for reorganisation brought forward by local areas. This Bill will enable the Secretary of State to direct areas to submit proposals to reorganise, but this power will only be used as a last resort when areas have failed to make any progress following an invitation.

As I have previously laid out, we want to give mayors the tools and opportunity to unleash the potential of their area with a more ambitious role and deeper powers. Each mayor will serve millions of people and manage multimillion pound budgets. This role has to be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. The Bill will revert elections for mayors and police and crime commissioners to the supplementary vote system after the May 2026 elections to provide greater accountability and a strong personal mandate. This was the voting system in place when mayors were first established, and it is the best system for electing people to single executive positions. In addition, the Bill will bar mayors from also sitting as MPs, ensuring that local places benefit fully from having dedicated local leaders.

We are not just giving mayors more power; we are also handing more control directly to the communities they serve. This Bill will give local communities a bigger say in shaping their place, with councils required to make sure that effective neighbourhood governance is in place. Communities will also have the tools to transform their high streets and neighbourhoods through a new community right to buy to save much-loved community assets such as pubs and shops from being lost, and to protect sports grounds, which are at the heart of so many communities and a source of great local pride. The Bill will also support our high streets by banning the unfair practice of upwards-only rent reviews, preventing the blight of vacant shopfronts. Every community should have the opportunity to thrive, and these measures are fundamental steps in achieving this.

I will now turn to a few amendments we made to the Bill in the other place. We have listened to parliamentarians and the sector and have introduced a modest number of amendments to ensure that the Bill functions correctly and delivers for local people. First, on London’s strategic licensing, I am sure noble Lords will agree that London’s pubs and restaurants are the beating heart of London’s cultural life. They contribute to our capital’s world-class status and to the growth of the economy. Yet for too long, hospitality businesses have been held back by a licensing regime that lacks proportionality, consistency and transparency. That is why we have brought forward amendments to establish a new licensing regime in London that will give hospitality businesses greater confidence and create the conditions for London’s night-time economy to thrive.

These amendments will also introduce a call-in power for the Mayor of London to determine borough licensing applications of strategic importance. The policy direction of the call-in amendment is clear. However, to ensure we fully digest any wider changes to the operation of licensing as a result of the call for evidence from the licensing policy taskforce—which closed on 6 November—we will bring forward more detailed amendments at a later stage in the Bill and we will continue to engage with noble Lords on this.

To support this Government’s commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, we have taken steps to cut unnecessary and duplicative bureaucracy. Amendments have been introduced which will allow mayors to adopt a written representation procedure when determining certain planning applications of potential strategic importance and which remove the requirement that the local planning authority must consent to mayors of strategic authorities when making, revising or revoking a mayoral development order. However, I assure noble Lords that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities. Mayors will still have to bring them along as they will be crucial to delivering these orders. It is about empowering mayors so they can provide the strategic leadership that areas deserve.

We have also brought forward an amendment which will devolve the approval of lane rental schemes from the Secretary of State for Transport to mayors of strategic authorities, putting decisions in the hands of those with knowledge of their area.

On taxi and private hire vehicles, the Government recognise the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, including inconsistent standards across the country and the practice of “out-of-area” working, where drivers choose to license in one authority area but work wholly or predominantly in a different authority area. As highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, in her recent National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, out-of-area working creates concerns in some authorities about the safeguarding standards applied to some of the drivers operating in their area. The Bill therefore creates a power for the Secretary of State to set national minimum standards for the licensing of drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles. Setting these licensing standards will help bring some consistency across licensing authorities.

Finally, we have taken concrete steps to ensure that local government members are able to perform their duties without fear for their own safety or that of their family. The world has changed a lot since I started being a councillor and this Government are clear that intimidation, harassment and abuse have no place in our democracy. This Bill puts it beyond doubt that a member’s, or co-opted member’s, home address should not be published by default. The amendment we introduced will also prevent the disclosure of home addresses when they are declared as interests at public meetings.

I know we all share a wish to set the sector on a firmer footing, ensure local government is fit, legal and decent, and empower communities to deliver real change and opportunities. We believe this Bill is a fundamental step in achieving this. By enabling the biggest shift of power from Whitehall to local areas in over a generation, this Bill will support the change residents expect and deserve: better joined-up delivery of public services, good jobs and politics being done with communities, not to them. I move the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their excellent contributions. It has been an engaging and constructive debate and, for someone as passionate about devolution and local government as I am, it is heartening to hear that passion echoed around the Chamber. We may have different views on how we do things, but that passion for moving some of the powers and funding that are currently held in this little bit of London to local areas has been echoed today. We all know the pressure that the current system is under. It is not working in many places now, and it certainly is not sustainable for the future. We can see the signs of the system cracking all around us, and we need to move forward with this.

I will answer a couple of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, before I start picking up particular detailed points in the Bill. The noble Baroness spoke about respect for local identity. These proposals have come from local government. We have not devised them in the office—there is no map-drawing going on in Marsham Street. That has been done by local people in their own areas. I will not take any lessons from the Tories, who dithered and delayed on local government review and devolution. They did some devolution, but they left huge areas of the country stranded from the increased powers and funding that some areas have benefited from. That cannot be right, and we need to address that now.

The accountability gap that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned is there now; what we are doing is introducing locally elected mayors to provide local accountability for local decision-making. With the powers that will be devolved from Whitehall to those local mayors, they will have a powerful democratic mandate to take decisions on behalf of their residents. With the strong local authorities that will sit alongside them and the neighbourhood governance that will take that accountability to the very local level, this is an empowering Bill in terms of accountability, not the other way around.

The noble Baroness asked about funding. There is £200 billion of funding being devoted to this mayoral project, and that gives areas a real chance to make decisions on their own behalf. There are other powers, which I will come to.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned fiscal stability. Fiscal stability comes from having growth and investment in every part of our country, not just in the bits of it where it is decided that it will be. We will get that fiscal stability only where we are making decisions on growth and investment at local level. It is therefore very important that we take these steps now.

Just briefly on the noble Baroness’s point about adult social care—which is well made; we know that there are huge problems with adult social care—each of the proposals for local government reorganisation contains the area’s ideas of how to do the transformation to adult care services. With that local input and the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is doing, I think that we have a chance to make a real step forward on adult social care after a long time of waiting for that to happen.

I will endeavour to respond to different points in turn, but I would be happy to discuss topics of interest in detail in advance of Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked an important question about other government departments and how they are reacting to the Bill. I simply point to the huge amount of co-operation that we have had from other government departments on, for example, skills, transport, public health and prevention, policing and the fire service. There has been a great cross-governmental project to work on this. I have some of my fellow Ministers sitting on the Front Bench with me and I know that they will be working in their own departments on how we devolve these powers to the local level.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also asked whether this devolution can really be delivered with local government finances in the state that they are. I very much regret that they are in that state, and we need to move that on. The answer to that question is that we simply cannot deliver the public services that people deserve and the growth that people need to see without making these changes. To the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I say that we absolutely understand the pressures: many of us have been very close to those pressures over the years, but we need to move this on now.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, that mayors will have powers devolved from Whitehall, not upwards from local government. That is very important. We will have stronger, more sustainable unitary local authorities delivering services to local people. As my noble friend Lady Griffin very articulately pointed out, that will instead create the opportunities and growth that we need to see across our country. Of course, people are worried about change, but I point to the success that we have seen right across mayoral areas already. Those areas that already have mayors are making great strides forward with economic growth, housebuilding, skills, transport and infrastructure.

Let me be clear, particularly to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who I have spoken to on many occasions at Hertfordshire events as well as in this House, that the historic institutions, such as lords-lieutenant and high sheriffs, remain a fundamental part of local life and will continue to do so.

A number of noble Lords raised issues about the functions of local government. As I said, no one is drawing maps in Whitehall; they are being devised and owned by local people. This place-shaping goes right to the heart of the local government reform that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to. Devolution by default is the principle right at the heart of the Bill. As mayoral authorities grow and get more established, they can request more powers, as we have already seen our colleagues in Manchester and other mayoral authorities doing. The Bill sees our system of devolution move away from an ad hoc and inconsistent model, replaced with a model where it is clear what places can access, when they can access it and under what conditions. Our new system of conferring functions on levels of strategic authority is devolution by default, which will streamline the devolution of functions. All areas can be confident about the functions they will receive and, as the framework deepens over time, they will know that they will have access to the new powers as they are introduced.

I am very grateful for the examples of great local action that we have heard. My noble friend Lady Elliott is right that accountable responsible mayors must have the funding that they need to deliver local outcomes and the right framework to demand further powers when they are ready to take them. The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Shephard, Lady Bennett and Lady Maclean, and the noble Lord, Viscount Trenchard, all spoke about issues relating to the establishment and the expansion of functions. The Government have been clear that devolution can deliver growth, unlock investment and deliver the change that the public want to see. That is why we want to see more parts of England benefit from devolution. Our engagement with councils to date has demonstrated that there is real appetite for this devolution across England, and the Bill will streamline the process for establishing new strategic authorities. It is our strong preference for devolution to be locally led.

However—and I hope this addresses some of the points about the powers that we have put into the Bill to deal with issues through ministerial-led routes—there are powers providing those routes to establish or expand strategic authorities or provide a strategic authority with a mayor. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and others who have raised this issue that these powers will be used only where no local agreement can be reached, where this cannot be moved forward at a local level. We much prefer this to be done at a local level, and this measure will definitely be a last resort. The powers will be subject to conditions and statutory tests and will not be commenced automatically. Instead, they will be commenced by regulations only when Ministers consider it necessary and we will ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to engage further on this matter.

My noble friend Lord Bassam’s points on pace are noted. I thank him for all the work that he did in Brighton. I agree that we need to establish stable unitary authorities as the foundation for devolution, and I am grateful for his comments.

As it has been mentioned in the debate many times, I will briefly refer to the devolution priority programme mayoral elections. Although we had a Question on it earlier, it is important to reiterate those comments, as they were questioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Shephard, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke about the importance of pace in the devolution priority programme associated with this, and the noble Lord, Lord Pack, mentioned this as well. Of course, we are committed to this extension of devolution and, for Cumbria, Cheshire and Warrington, the first mayoral elections for the new strategic authorities will take place in 2027, as those local authorities had already requested that that be the date for them. For Norfolk and Suffolk, Greater Essex, Sussex and Brighton, and Hampshire and the Solent, which are all areas that currently have two tiers of local government, we have announced that we are minded to hold the first mayoral elections for those areas in May 2028, because we know mayoral devolution is most successful when mayoral strategic authorities are underpinned by strong unitary councils. Therefore, holding elections for new mayors in 2028 will allow enough time for the reorganisation process to conclude and unitary councils to be well established.

On the issue of why culture and heritage are not included in the competence list—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and my noble friend Lady Griffin mentioned this—the current list of thematic policy areas is deliberately broad and is intended to allow a wide range of activities to fall within the scope of the areas of competence. Many initiatives relating to culture, heritage and tourism would naturally be encompassed within the economic development and regeneration area of competence. Strategic authorities will remain key players in supporting culture and heritage initiatives locally. Many are already using their existing powers to support culture, heritage and tourism.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised important points about the ability of local government, confidence in its institutions and how that can drive community cohesion. She is absolutely right to raise that, which is why it is important that these institutions are stable and people have confidence in them. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, mentioned the environment, which is the specific competence of mayors, and energy, which is the subject of new powers over local growth plans and strategic planning.

The issue of the appointment of commissioners was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I think that the noble Lord asked why they are not local government leaders. They can be local government leaders if that is the way that the mayor decides to take this. Local authorities will have critical new functions to undertake. They require representation on national bodies and joint working. It is not realistic to expect a mayor to do all this on their own. That is why mayors will be able to appoint and remunerate commissioners to lead on one of seven areas of competence, helping to increase the capacity in their strategic authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about rural communities in this respect. Mayors can set an expectation that one or all of their commissioners should focus on rural issues. This is rightly a local decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and many other noble Peers raised issues around local government funding. We are making good now on long-overdue promises to fundamentally update the outdated funding system and its decades-old data. We are targeting money where it is needed most by properly accounting for local need and equalising local income. We are giving local authorities greater flexibility and certainty as we simplify the more than 30 funding streams that were there when we came into office, worth almost £47 billion through the first multi-year settlement in a decade. Giving local authorities that certainty over funding, and over multi-year settlements, is critical here. We will publish the local authority allocations later in December and they will be subject to consultation and the usual parliamentary process.

On mayoral combined authority precepts, to empower mayors to deliver change in their communities, they need to be able to spend money effectively. Previously, mayors could use their precept only to raise money for mayoral functions. This did not cover some areas vital to growth, such as adult skills provision. The Bill will allow mayors to spend money raised through the mayoral precept across the whole of an authority’s function. The introduction of a precept will need to be approved through the budget voting process within each strategic authority.

On council tax, we are committed to empowering local leaders to drive growth and deliver for their communities, without placing excessive tax burdens on people. We are delivering the long-awaited local government funding reforms and the multi-year settlements, and we are consulting on modernising and improving the administration of council tax, to make the system fairer, more efficient and more transparent. That package builds a more sustainable, accountable and locally empowered system that focuses on the needs of communities.

There has been a broad agreement that local audit reform was needed. I agree with my noble friend Lady Armstrong that audit is essential for public confidence. When the whole-government accounts cannot be cleared because of the issues with local government funding, something has to change. Local audit is vital for ensuring trust and confidence that taxpayers’ money is being used wisely. We have acted decisively to clear the backlog, but significant further reform is needed. Last December, we published a strategy and consultation on measures to outline a road to recovery and set the system up for long-term, sustainable success. The Bill delivers core elements of this strategy, creating a clear statutory remit for the local audit office to oversee and streamline the system. I hope that picks up the points that noble Lords mentioned.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Pidgeon, my noble friend Lady Armstrong and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, all mentioned the scrutiny of combined authorities and local public accounts committees. All combined authorities will be required to establish both overview and scrutiny committees, and audit committees. Beyond these structures, the current system of accountability and scrutiny is guided by the English Devolution Accountability Framework and scrutiny protocol. We are reviewing both documents to reflect the changes brought forward by the integrated settlement and the Bill. We recognise that there is scope to further strengthen the system of accountability and scrutiny for mayoral strategic authorities. That is why we committed in the White Paper to exploring models for local public accounts committees and local accounting officers. We are committed to strengthening accountability alongside the strengthened devolution offer, and we will confirm our policy approach in due course.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Janke, Lady Bennett and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, among others, mentioned the important issue of our parish and town councils. The Government value the role that town and parish councils play; they are an important part of local democracy. There are no plans to abolish town and parish councils or to change their powers. Our plans on neighbourhood governance in the Bill are about hardwiring community engagement into local authorities themselves. Parish councils will be an important partner in creating stronger, more responsive neighbourhood governance, as will the whole range of grass-roots groups that support community empowerment. I hope that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about community groups and their engagement in this. It is for local authorities to determine whether new parish and town councils are needed, and this is done through the community governance review process.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Griffin, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised issues around community empowerment. Of course, communities need power returned to them. We want to empower local leaders so that they can better affect the decisions impacting on their areas. That is why we are giving communities stronger tools to shape the future of their local areas, such as the new community right to buy, to help protect against the loss of cherished local assets. Some 350 of the most deprived communities are receiving funding from the Government. This includes the 75 plan for neighbourhoods areas and 25 new trailblazer areas, which will receive £20 million in funding over the next decade, including the pride in place funding. There is a clear ambition to hardwire that community engagement into this new system.

On the neighbourhood governance plans, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about removing powers from local areas. It is the opposite of that; we are creating a clear neighbourhood governance system for local authorities to hardwire community engagement and neighbourhood working into their governance. The goal of that neighbourhood governance is to move decision-making closer to residents. Decisions about local communities should be made by people who understand local needs. That is why we are introducing a new requirement for all local authorities to make appropriate arrangements for the effective governance of local neighbourhood areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised issues about rural versus urban. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, I will not get involved in the cream and jam debate. I am afraid the planning Bill and the English devolution Bill are quite controversial enough for me; I will not get involved in a debate about scones. The Government recognise that neighbourhoods across England are diverse, and that rural and urban communities have different needs and characteristics. Through the review of existing council-led neighbourhood governance models, we are working closely with local authorities and the community sector to understand what works best in different contexts.

The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lansley, raised important issues around mayoral development corporations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the value of the New Towns Taskforce report and Sir Oliver Letwin’s report relating to master planning and development corporations. That is why the Bill extends to all mayors the power to create mayoral development corporations, to drive economic growth and regeneration. Mayoral development corporations will benefit residents by delivering new homes, better transport and economic opportunities, revitalising areas for future generations.

I can see I have run out of time. I am sorry; I knew I would not get through all this, but I will respond in writing to any noble Lords whose questions I did not get to. I will conclude my remarks now. I reiterate my thanks to your Lordships for their engagement with the Bill to this point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for raising the issue of the District Councils’ Network and the County Councils Network, which have contributed hugely to the work going forward and to briefing noble Lords.

As the Bill progresses, I am happy to accommodate any requests from noble Lords for meetings or additional briefings wherever helpful. As I have set out earlier today, this ambitious legislation will deliver top to bottom redistribution of power, putting decision-making in the hands of local areas and delivering real change for working people. With this Bill, the Government will deliver on our manifesto commitment to empower local leaders and mayors to unlock growth and opportunities right across our country by making the right decisions for the communities they serve. I look forward to working with your Lordships during the passage of this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 to 23, Schedule 5, Clause 24, Schedule 6, Clause 25, Schedule 7, Clause 26, Schedule 8, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 9, Clauses 29 and 30, Schedule 10, Clause 31, Schedule 11, Clause 32, Schedule 12, Clause 33, Schedules 13 and 14, Clause 34, Schedule 15, Clause 35, Schedule 16, Clause 36, Schedule 17, Clause 37, Schedule 18, Clause 38, Schedule 19, Clause 39, Schedule 20, Clauses 40 to 43, Schedule 21, Clauses 44 to 46, Schedule 22, Clause 47, Schedule 23, Clauses 48 to 50, Schedule 24, Clauses 51 and 52, Schedule 25, Clauses 53 to 57, Schedule 26, Clauses 58 and 59, Schedule 27, Clauses 60 and 61, Schedule 28, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 29, Clauses 64 to 73, Schedule 30, Clause 74, Schedule 31, Clause 75, Schedule 32, Clauses 76 to 84, Schedule 33, Clause 85, Schedule 34, Clauses 86 to 93, Title.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I understand that there has been no agreement in the usual channels for the Bill to be committed to a Grand Committee. I put on record that it is very disappointing that the Government have tabled this Motion without the agreement of the usual channels.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip consulted the usual channels in the usual manner. I am also aware that he spoke to some key Peers with an interest in the Bill.

Motion agreed.

Gateway 3 New-build Applications

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the clearance rate of Gateway 3 new-build applications by the Building Safety Regulator.

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

My Lords, we have acknowledged recent challenges within the building safety regulator. That is why, in June, we introduced a series of reforms to strengthen it, including a new strength and leadership team under Andy Roe, steps to address operational challenges and plans for a new independent body with oversight of the BSR, as recommended by the Grenfell inquiry. The gateway 3 regime is still relatively new, and few projects have yet reached this final stage, but early experience is helping developers and the BSR to refine the process to make sure it is consistent, efficient and firmly focused on safety outcomes. The BSR is working with the Construction Leadership Council to publish a further suite of industry guidance on gateway 3 this year.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, given the serious demand for housing in this country, it is not appropriate that those looking for housing are waiting almost six months for stage 3 application approvals. I have been informed that, on a number of occasions, inspections have been cancelled at the very last minute with no indication of when they will take place. What is the Minister doing to take that inefficiency out of the system and allow progress on this issue?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I explained, a programme of significant improvement has been undertaken under the new BSR leadership team. Of course, waiting six months for inspections is not an acceptable way forward; we want to improve things, and improvements are coming through the system now. Some of the work done by the new leadership team has already introduced this significant improvement. At gateway 3—a relatively new procedure, as I said—there have been 72 applications so far, which were received by November. Some 59 of those—82%—have already been approved, so things are beginning to improve.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, many local councils in cities across our country are building upwards, with high-rise housing development even for families. I welcome these milestones in advanced building safety in building infrastructure. Can the Minister assure the House that she is doing everything she can to speed up the process and to ensure that strict regulatory monitoring of the highest standard remains, once implemented, thereby avoiding at all costs another Grenfell disaster?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right to point to the balance we need here. I can do no better than to quote Andy Roe, who said that

“the BSR remains firmly committed to its core mission: keeping residents and their homes safe. Life-safety critical defects cannot be ignored and improvements to efficiency cannot be pursued at the expense of rigour”.

So we must get the balance right here: we have to speed up these processes and get them working properly for the industry, but we must also make sure that, in doing that, we do not relax at all on the very clear standards we must have to keep buildings safe.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, there are great concerns about the standards being applied in the building industry nowadays. We no longer have Walker Morris standards to guide us, but, having had many dangerous situations such as Grenfell Tower and a lack of quality in many builds, particularly in large estates, surely it is necessary to increase the resources available to the regulator in order to deal with these matters quickly and make sure that the standards people expect are maintained.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord might have been referring to Parker Morris standards, but it is quite right that we have to focus very hard on keeping up the quality of build. That is absolutely what the building safety regulator is there to do. We are making sure that we support Andy Roe and his team in what they need to do. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, there has been a capacity issue in the system, but the June spending review committed an additional £1.2 billion a year to the skills system, supporting over 65,000 additional learners in key areas such as housebuilding, remediation and building safety. That will be critical. We have also invested £16.5 million specifically to recruit and train registered building inspectors, who form a vital part of this process. We are working with the independent building control panel to identify system-wide improvements, which I am sure will help with the issues the noble Lord is concerned about.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, it is important to recognise the significant progress made recently, but, sadly, much less progress has been made on the 253 applications for remedial work to existing high-rise buildings. Some of this involved residents having to move out while still paying their mortgages and management fees for properties they cannot legally access. Due to a definition of “building work” that is arguably too broad, relatively simple and straightforward work is being caught up in the gateway scheme and is adding to the backlog. What is being done to consult with the industry so that common types of work, such as the replacement of fire door sets, can be undertaken without resorting to a gateway application at all, so that it can get on with the serious job of removing dangerous cladding?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Two things are under way, one of which is working with the industry to identify those issues; it is very important that the remediation programme is well under way. The BSR has established a dedicated external remediation team responsible for assessing all building control approval applications relating to cladding remediation, so that is under way already. The other work the team has been doing is to make sure that, with applications that are not dependent on some of the work that can go on in the interim, that work can progress, so we are not holding up final approvals but letting people get on with what can be done in the meantime. I am sure that will help to unlock some of the hold-ups that have been in the system so far.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, if this were one isolated regulator falling down on the job, that would be one thing; but one after another, these quango regulators are failing. Is it not time to look not just at an individual regulator but at the whole model and the sort of people appointed to these jobs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord may be aware that one recommendation of the Grenfell report was to have a single building regulator. Progress is being made towards that—a single body is being set up with oversight of the building safety regulator. We need to move this forward very quickly, but it is important that we get it right as we do so. We need to work with the industry to deliver the single construction regulator in a way that will work effectively for everybody. The new body has been established through a statutory instrument, which was laid on 11 November. So progress is being made, and we need to make sure that we move this on as quickly as we can.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have seen a significant drop in the delivery of housing starts in London. Have the Government analysed the impact of delays in and the uncertainty of the BSR process on the viability of apartment blocks above 18 metres, and thus the development of those blocks? If so, will the Minister share that analysis with the House?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

One of the benefits of the changes to the BSR is that regular data is now being published monthly. The November data has been published and is available online for all interested parties to look at. As I have said, we accept that the delays have been unacceptable. About 15% to 25% of the new dwellings that we want to build will be the responsibility of the BSR to improve. The new team has introduced an innovation model to deliver significantly reduced processing times for all new build applications—not just for London but for everywhere else. We expect most cases under the previous model to be unblocked by the year end. There has been a dramatic improvement already, with reductions of 20 weeks or more in some of the approval processes.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, is not the fundamental problem here the builders, rather than the regulator? Too many builders seem to be prepared to cut corners, and that is where the fundamental problem starts.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

This is the important work that is being done—working with the construction industry and the BSR to make sure that everybody understands what their responsibilities are in this process. The construction industry has worked incredibly closely with the BSR to develop guidance on what needs to be submitted it, and to understand how we make can sure that buildings are safe. I come back to the words of Andy Roe: it is very important that people be reassured that the buildings they move into are going to be safe going forward. Our job in government is to make sure that we get the balance right between safety and not blocking up the whole industry, such that it cannot move forward with developing the homes people need. I am very confident in the ability of the new BSR team to take this forward.

Fair Funding Review

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how the pressures on local authorities to deliver additional housing and employment growth are factored into the Fair Funding Review.

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

We have already taken important steps to ensure that local government is able to support our Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, to tackle the housing crisis and to kick-start economic growth. The Fair Funding Review 2.0 reforms further incentivise these ambitions through an inbuilt reward in the council-tax calculation and the business rates retention scheme. We understand that local government is at the heart of delivering our growth and housing missions. More details will be published at the provisional settlement later this year.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. Additional housing and commercial property come at a cost to councils in both capital and revenue terms, and more than that raised by the additional council tax. Can the Minister explain why this Government are removing the incentive of retained business rates, which will force many councils—which have done the right thing and supported growth—to raise council tax to the maximum and cut their services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important, particularly now, that we support local government, after 14 years of successive funding cuts and the battering it came under from the last Government. Through our funding reforms local authorities will be empowered, as key partners, to meet the housing need and help deliver growth across the country. We will reward local authorities for housebuilding, as they will benefit from additional council tax rates for each new house built in their area over the course of the multi-year period. On business rates, we will keep long-standing incentives so that local authorities continue to be rewarded for growth. Through their fair funding review, the previous Government recognised the need for reform, but they did not deliver. We are making good on this commitment and introducing improvements for the first time since 2013.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has just explained that council tax projections for new homes will not now be included in the financial assessment for council income. However, those councils with high deprivation and low economic growth are likely to have below average rates of housebuilding too. Can the Minister explain why the Government are willing to penalise those areas once again?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not agree with the presumption in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. For too long, an outdated council funding system, based on decades-old data, has entrenched the inequality of which she speaks—we all know that—with those least able to raise council tax and business rates given less favourable funding settlements. This has left some councils on a cliff edge and communities in deprived areas facing service cuts and rising bills, as well as being unable to deliver the economic growth and housing that we know those communities need. Some councils in less deprived areas have benefited disproportionately, building up their reserves. Our reforms will reverse this injustice and make sure that councils will be funded fairly, enabling them to deliver for their communities on services and on the growth that we all want to see.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

In the part of Devon where I live, there are half a dozen separate building projects. As far as I can see, almost none of them is doing much in the way of affordable housing. What are the Government doing to encourage affordable housing in all such projects?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, may be aware that the Government have allocated an unprecedented £39 billion of funding for a new social and affordable homes programme. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme as social rent. This is really important in both urban and rural communities to make sure that we are able to allocate social and affordable housing in those areas. We will be enabling councils to use their right-to-buy receipts to pair up with the funding from the social and affordable homes programme.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that government funding and support should be based on need and should take into account the ability of the local authority to raise its own resources locally? During the last 13 years, this was moved away from. Are we going back to a similar system to that which operated for many years?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, local authorities remain the biggest funders of arts and cultural services. These are important for growth and employment growth, yet since 2010, spending on these areas, alongside heritage, tourism and libraries, has decreased by more than 50%. While recognising that there are many important pressures on local authorities, will the fair funding review allow for proper reinvestment in this significant area?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I very much agree. I have seen on the front line how cuts to local government funding have affected so much the provision of social activities, culture and leisure in our communities. It is very important that local government has the ability to make provision for local communities in those areas. What happened was that the harder it was for a local council to raise funds, the more they seemed to be penalised through the system. The more deprived a community was, the less likely they were to have the headroom to deliver the kinds of services the noble Earl speaks about. We need to change that, and we are working on reversing that.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the reasons so many local authorities are failing to meet their housing delivery targets? What steps are being taken to support them in doing so?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The first thing we did was restore the mandatory housing targets because, first, it did not make any sense to us. We wanted to deliver an overall target across the country but we were not saying what part in that each local authority played. Secondly, we know there are a lot of pressures facing local planning authorities. We have invested £46 million in this year’s funding to strengthen the capacity and capability to deliver planning reform to enable local authorities to meet their housing targets. We have made a commitment to recruit 300 additional planners, alongside wider planning policy changes—we will be discussing these later this afternoon—and legislative changes. That will help us deliver the housing and economic growth our country desperately needs.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, my experience as a councillor was that builders and developers would often promise a percentage of social or affordable housing within their building projects and then somehow fail to do that. Are there enough penalties for builders who do that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We continue to explore this. It is very important that local authorities are able to set in their local plans the targets that they think are appropriate for their local areas. We will continue to explore with local authorities, particularly as we roll out the funding for social and affordable housing, whether there is any more we need to do to make sure that housing is delivered to the targets that each local authority has set itself.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Commons consider a more streamlined process of Parliamentary scrutiny is more appropriate to apply to an amendment of a national policy statement which reflects relevant published government policy, changes to (or the coming into force of) relevant legislation, a change to a published document referred to in a national policy statement or a relevant decision in court proceedings.

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

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D, E and E1, which are grouped together. It is a great pleasure to bring the Planning and Infrastructure Bill back to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place.

A number of further commitments were made last week, which, where relevant, I will repeat today. I will first discuss amendments that relate to the provision of infrastructure in this country. Before doing so, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussions between Report and today’s ping-pong.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has tabled an amendment that would reinstate the requirement for the Government to respond to any resolutions of Parliament, or Select Committee recommendations, when making certain material changes to a national policy statement. This amendment risks undermining a core aim of the Bill: to keep national policy statements up to date swiftly and effectively. The reflective amendment procedure is not a shortcut to avoid scrutiny; it is a practical tool, accompanied by commitments to work with Select Committees, to ensure that NPSs can be updated without undue delay to reflect published government policy, legislative updates, a court decision or a change to a published document referred to in the statement.

National policy statements are the backbone of the NSIP regime. They unlock billions in private investment, create jobs and drive sustainable growth. If they fall out of date, projects can stall, costs can rise and confidence in the system is eroded.

As noble Lords know, Clause 1 already guarantees robust oversight by requiring all NPSs to be reviewed at least every five years, with the oldest NPSs required to be updated within two years of the clause coming into effect. We expect that updates to the five NPSs in this transitional category will undergo full parliamentary scrutiny, and Select Committees will play a central role. But where changes relate to specific types of updates, such as reflecting government policy and aligning with legislation or court rulings, the reflective amendment route ensures that the process is proportionate while maintaining accountability.

To address concerns raised in both Houses, the Government have made clear commitments. We will notify the relevant Select Committee at the start of any consultation. We will lay a Statement in Parliament explaining how the changes meet the statutory definition. Ministers will make themselves available to give evidence during that period. If a Select Committee publishes a report during the consultation period, the Government will take its recommendations into account. These safeguards ensure transparency and respect for Parliament. The chair of the Commons Liaison Committee has already said she is reassured that the Select Committee corridor will be treated with the respect it deserves.

Let me emphasise that this procedure will only apply to changes that reflect published policy, legislative amendments or court decisions. Even then, Parliament retains the ultimate safeguard. The draft NPS must be laid for 21 sitting days before it can take effect. This is a balanced, proportionate approach. It keeps the NPSs current, supports infrastructure delivery and preserves Parliament’s ultimate authority, ensuring that oversight remains robust and meaningful.

Amendments 2A and 3 seek to insert additional requirements relating to heritage consents and community engagement for reservoir NSIP applications. I greatly respect the concerns about the impact of reservoir NSIPs on communities and heritage, so ably explained in the course of our debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, recalling villages in Northumbria, the Lake District and Wales that were submerged for projects such as Rutland Water and Kielder Water. While these reservoirs provide vital water and local pride, they came at great cost. Securing safeguards for heritage and for communities is essential when considering major infrastructure projects. Heritage underpins our tourism and economy and is irreplaceable. It must be managed effectively through our planning system.

The historic cases I mentioned arose before today’s planning framework. We now have the Planning Act 2008 and a suite of supporting secondary legislation and guidance which ensures the thorough evaluation of nationally significant infrastructure projects and their impacts.

Section 33 of the Planning Act removes the need for separate consents to be obtained for works affecting listed buildings or monuments, instead creating a unified consent in the development consent order if granted. A number of protections, including in legislation, are embedded in that consenting process. These ensure that the NSIP process does not represent a dilution of heritage protections, while ensuring the regime is a one-stop shop for consent.

First and foremost, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets when deciding applications. The Secretary of State must comply with the obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations. Decisions must also be made in accordance with the national policy statements, subject to limited exceptions. The water resources NPS applies to dams and reservoirs and contains dedicated policy on the historic environment, requiring weight to be given to conservation and recognising that heritage assets cannot be replaced.

This NPS defines heritage assets and explains that some have a level of significance that justifies official designation. This explicitly includes world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, and conservation areas.

Applicants are also required, where applicable, to include information about heritage impacts when they submit their applications for development consent. Where an environmental impact assessment is required, they must assess impacts as part of this. But it is not solely applicants and the Secretary of State who are responsible for consideration of heritage. Historic England is a statutory body required to be notified by the applicant of a decision to accept an application for examination. Statutory bodies are given the opportunity to make a relevant representation. If they do so, they are classified as “interested parties” and would be engaged, with opportunities to provide views to the examining authority, during the NSIP examination process.

I am confident that the NSIP system provides numerous sufficient protections for the heritage assets of this country. However, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House today, and as such, I am happy to commit to review the “historic environment” section of the water NPS to consider both the advice provided to the applicant and required considerations of the Secretary of State. Given the numerous additional protections and commitments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is sufficiently reassured and that he will not insist on his Amendment 2.

On the impact of reservoirs on communities, before we get to the substance of the amendment, I want to briefly note that it is legally flawed. The amendment misconstrues the process for a dam or reservoir project entering the NSIP regime; most of the time such projects automatically enter the NSIP regime as a Section 14(1)(m) project when the criteria set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act are met.

I none the less want to emphasise that the voices and contributions of people living in affected areas are vital to the effective delivery of projects and the legitimacy of the NSIP system. Following changes proposed to pre-application consultation through the Bill, the Government will publish new guidance setting clear expectations on engagement with those affected in the NSIP application process.

Let me be clear: at the forefront of this guidance will be an expectation that engagement is undertaken early, when voices can and do make a real difference to projects. This should be offered in a variety of ways, including in person, to be accessible and allow affected persons to share their views about the development and the impact it will have.

NSIP applicants have a responsibility towards those affected by their proposals and should be present and visible to local communities to ensure accountability to them during the development and examination of applications. The requirement for an applicant to publicise a proposed application is preserved in the Planning Act 2008. The Act continues to ensure that people are notified during pre-application. Those affected persons will be notified if an application is accepted for examination.

Opportunities to be heard do not stop there. Statutory provisions guarantee participation throughout the process. Local authorities are invited to produce local impact reports, bringing forward local knowledge and setting out impacts of the development, which the Secretary of State must have regard to in deciding the application. The system also provides opportunities for individuals to participate, both through making a relevant and/or written representation and making oral representations at hearings. Those whose land is being acquired have an automatic right to request a hearing and have their voice heard.

While these amendments raise important points, the existing framework already provides strong protections. Nevertheless, to provide further assurances, and in recognition of the importance of the issues raised, the Government will commit to bring forward the next water NPS update to consider community engagement for reservoir and dam projects.

The Secretary of State will consider how best to reflect expectations around early and effective engagement with impacted residents, particularly where projects may involve significant demolition or disruption, to ensure that local communities and impacted individuals’ voices are heard. This will include consultation with stakeholders on whether greater policy guidance is required to ensure that our planning system remains rigorous, responsive and inclusive. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and that she will agree to no longer insist on her amendment.

Amendments 31A and 31B relate to accessible charging and seek to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points. I say a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his constructive engagement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their contributions on this matter. The Government tabled an amendment in lieu which includes some changes that go slightly further than the original amendment. Reflecting the feedback from industry and other stakeholders, the Government’s amendment ensures that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points. They also ensure that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering accessible charge points. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 already gives the Government powers to require the sharing of accessibility data, so we have not included this.

This amendment applies to Great Britain. The Northern Irish Ministers did not wish for this amendment, which relates to a transferred matter, to extend to them. They are able to bring forward their own legislation. The UK Government will work with Northern Ireland and wishes to minimise divergence of standards across the United Kingdom. I appreciated the very interesting debate that we had in this House, led by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and hope that this meets all the noble Lord’s concerns on this issue.

Turning finally to Amendment 32, the Government recognise the impact that water stress has on communities, including farmers and sports clubs, as well as the role that low-hazard reservoirs can play in mitigating such issues. I recognise the wider point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that urgent action is required. The Government will respond to the Cunliffe recommendations in full via a White Paper that will be published later this year. It will outline the Government’s vision for the future of the water sector, marking the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Defra Science Search website. Updated data will be published following consultation and decisions on the details of proposed reforms.

I am happy to confirm that the Housing Minister committed in the other place to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Minister went further, committing to provide clarity to farmers about when the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs can be used. This would be achieved by updating the relevant planning practice guidance. Providing further information and clarity about precisely when this permitted development right can be relied on, and what conditions and limitations apply, will support the amendment’s aim of enabling farmers to construct these reservoirs.

We support the objective of this amendment. Of the two actions proposed, the first action has already been completed. The Government have committed to deliver the second within the timeframe set out in the original amendment. We have also gone further and committed to clarifying guidance on the permitted development right that supports the construction of on-farm reservoirs. I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, feels able not to insist on her amendment. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Before I sit down, I reiterate that quite a few of our amendments would have delivered the much-needed homes and infrastructure that are the purpose of the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful for their engagement on the important matters that have been the subject of this group. I will address noble Lords’ points individually.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I refer to all the protections I set out earlier as part of the Government’s reassurance that we take very seriously the conservation of heritage buildings. He asked me about timeframes. It was the intention that the water NPS would not be done until 2030 but I am prepared to commit to him that we will bring it forward to 2026 so that we can make sure that this is addressed quickly to give clarity to all those concerned. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord, and that that protection, and the bringing forward of the review to next year, will enable him not to press his amendment.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, I very much appreciate the long-standing expertise and commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to addressing some of the pressing water management issues that have been around for decades. I understand her impatience about the time it has taken to deal with some of them. On the urgency, I draw her attention to the fact that the Cunliffe review was completed this year, and the Government have already undertaken to produce a water White Paper by the end of the year, so we are not hanging around in dealing with this. Once the appropriate consultation on the White Paper has been done, we will bring forward legislation in a water Bill to deal with it. I hope that that lets the noble Baroness know that the Government do not want these issues to continue to hang around for decades. We want to deal with this issue; we take it seriously. I know that my colleagues in Defra deal with it daily.

The NPS for water resources infrastructure, designated in September 2023 and amended in 2025, sets out the need for and the Government’s policies for all nationally significant water resources infrastructure projects—that is, large reservoirs and transfer schemes. It explains that the need for the infrastructure is set out in water company statutory water resources management plans and explains the assessment principles that any DCO application for qualifying water resources projects must satisfy. For projects that fall under the NSIP regime, automatically or by direction, and within the NPS’s scope, the Secretary of State must determine the application in accordance with the NPS. It is important that NPSs are in place as quickly as possible so that we can determine applications in accordance with them, unless there are prescribed compelling reasons not to do so. The policy therefore ensures that long-term water supply resilience and national infrastructure are embedded in the consenting framework.

On the reservoirs the noble Baroness was referring to, we will get that into the planning practice guidance as soon as is practicable. I am happy to work with her on that as we move forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised the issue of local impact statements. He is quite right to say that, as part of the Planning Act 2008, relevant local authorities will be invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of proposed developments on the authority’s area. The Government are considering responses to our recent consultation on guidance on and engagement with NSIPs. This includes guidance to local authorities on local impact reports. We will carefully consider what the guidance can say to address concerns about the heritage impact issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Water White Paper will be this calendar year—I hope before Parliament breaks for recess, but I do not want to commit my Defra colleagues further than they have given me licence to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised issues concerning reservoirs. The national policy statement would protect those reservoirs and make sure that we have an obligation to do so. As I have explained many times, although the national policy statements are not in themselves the matter of primary legislation, because they have to change and be adaptable to circumstances, they do carry the full weight of the planning system in legal terms. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that that protection is in place.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. She is completely right: we need to get this Bill through so that we can start on the infrastructure projects and the housebuilding that we need. As the Minister responsible for these issues in this House, the human reality she talks about and the disruption faced by communities is absolutely not lost on me. As we go through the process of strengthening the guidance and bringing forward an early review of the NPS on water, we will take full account of the need to ensure that communities are protected in the way she so admirably championed throughout consideration of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A.

2A: Line 45, leave out subsections (7) and (8)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because the Commons consider that it would create a duplicative process and cause unnecessary delay.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B in lieu.

31A: Page 60, line 27, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Accessibility of public charging or refuelling points
In section 10 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection) at the end insert—
“(5) Regulations may impose requirements in connection with the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points in England, Wales and Scotland, such as requirements relating to—
(a) the design of the point,
(b) the location, placement or surroundings of the point, and
(c) the provision of assistance in using the point.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may prescribe requirements by reference to technical standards or specifications published by a person specified in the regulations (including standards or specifications as amended from time to time).
(7) Regulations under subsection (5) may impose requirements on any person, including—
(a) persons making, supplying, importing, operating or installing public charging or refuelling points;
(b) the owners or occupiers of land on which public charging or refuelling points are situated.
(8) Regulations under subsection (5) may not impose requirements on owners or occupiers of domestic premises.””

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 32, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 32A.

32A: Because the Commons do not consider it necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can reassure the noble Baroness that we propose to introduce a new hazard classification system with four hazard classes. The assessment of hazard class would take into account dam height, reservoir volume and likely numbers of people downstream. Safety management practices would be tailored to each hazard class so that the lowest hazard class would have minimum requirements—less than the current ones, which I hope is reassuring to her—and the highest hazard class would have more than the current requirements. I hope it is reassuring that we want to make this easier for farmers, not harder.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

When is that classification coming in?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point.

Motion E1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.

33A: Because the Commons consider that requiring these regulations to be made by affirmative procedure would not be an appropriate use of Parliamentary time.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Motion F to agree with Lords Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. This was a really important amendment, and I am very glad that it has been dealt with in this way, as has Motion G and Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey on the important issue of assets of community value. I look forward to seeing them put in place in future.

We have felt compelled to bring Motion J1 back to the attention of your Lordships’ House. Although we will not press the matter further, it is important that the concerns are placed clearly on record. We do so because the Government’s previous response did not engage with the substance of the issues at stake.

First, the Government have sidestepped the statutory issue entirely. This amendment would place a clear, unambiguous duty on spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield development and urban densification. That duty matters. Yet the Minister’s response relied almost exclusively on guidance, prospective consultations and future proposals. None of that explains why this responsibility should not sit in primary legislation. As we all know, the system is failing precisely because guidance can be overlooked and too often is. Brownfield opportunities are not ignored because they do not exist; they are ignored because the framework does not require public bodies or developers to pursue them.

Secondly, the Government’s response failed to address the sustainability dimension. This amendment is not simply about land categories. It is about shaping the behaviour of the built environment, supporting mixed, walkable communities, reducing travel distances and aligning development patterns with our environmental and economic goals. None of this featured in the Government’s reply, which focused solely on whether brownfield land is being sufficiently identified rather than on how our planning system directs the form, character and quality of the development. Without statutory underpinning, these wider sustainability objectives will continue to be treated as optional—desirable, certainly, but dispensable when inconvenient.

Let me finally address the Minister’s suggestion that our amendment would heighten the risk of legal challenge and that clarity in the NPPF makes such a duty unnecessary. In effect, the Minister defended the status quo, but legal challenge is a feature of any meaningful statutory change—indeed, of any planning decision. The possibility of challenge is not an argument for inaction; it is inherent in the evolution of any policy. A clearer statutory duty would, over time, reduce conflict by giving decision-makers firmer parameters and greater certainty.

I acknowledge that the Minister wrote over the weekend outlining the Government’s intention. Her letter stated that,

“the revised NPPF will provide even clearer policies to drive decision-making, including on brownfield land”.

We accept the Government saying again today that national policy is the most appropriate route for setting planning decisions, that the proposed changes will mark a step change and that they expect these reforms to meet the objectives of the “brownfield first” principle.

However, if Ministers truly believe that these revisions will drive brownfield development, then they must be willing and able to show evidence of success. The proportion of brownfield used must rise meaningfully as a direct result of these changes. Warm words about future consultations are not enough; they must turn into action. This House must be able to see the data and interrogate it, track progress and hold the Government firmly to account. If Ministers are confident in their claims, they should have no hesitation in committing to return to the House with clear, measurable evidence that these reforms are genuinely delivering a brownfield first approach in practice, not just in rhetoric. Until that proof is forthcoming, our concerns remain.

We live on a small island. Food security is critical in the world we live in. This Bill has taken our agricultural land for energy use and housing. Greenfields produce food for our nation; wheat and potatoes cannot be produced on urban brownfield sites.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate; I will address the points that have been raised during our discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Banner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their endorsement of our position on Motion F. I always hope that when a good idea comes forward, we will not hesitate to accept it; that was a good idea, and we will be moving forward with it.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I very much look forward to the debates we will have on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It is a different approach to assets of community value. It expands the definitions of assets of community value, including sporting and recreational assets, it gives longer for communities to do the work needed to enact this right, and it gives a right to buy approach, which I hope we will have good debates on.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, made a very important point about avoiding the proliferation of thresholds, and I will take that back. I hope he will continue to work with us on that, as he does on other issues.

In relation to the NPPF consultation, I appreciate that delay causes uncertainty. We are hoping to do it by the end of the year. Planning is a dynamic process. When we were having debates with the Housing Minister and some developers, he said that they cannot always be waiting for the next thing to come along. This is the planning Bill at the moment. The NPPF is the NPPF. We want people to get on and build the infrastructure and housing we need. There may be changes in the future, but planning is always going to be dynamic and will have to change as other things change. However, it is important we make sure the NPPF is fit for purpose, and we get this planning Bill through so we can get on and deliver what we need to.

I hope I picked up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on assets of community value in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

On the important point about brownfield sites and contaminated sites made by the noble Baroness, the viability PPG already factors in potential brownfield challenges. The guidance on defining costs notes that brownfield sites may have abnormal costs associated with them. We are continuing to look at this as we go through because there are some sites with high levels of contamination. The noble Baroness may be aware that I visited Stoke-on-Trent recently, which has some sites on former mining areas. They are an issue, and we continue to keep it under review, as she would expect.

Her points about the Minister’s announcement on railways stations make the point that we have been arguing around brownfield sites. For the most part, the land around railway stations can be considered brownfield sites. We want to make sure that we make the most of those sites, which have good transport links and are often essential to the economy of an area. This is why the Minister felt that it was appropriate, in that case, to make that a consideration—that is, where it looked like applications there might be refused, they could be called in. Of course, communities still get the opportunity to have their say in that process.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion G

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A.

37A: Because the Commons consider that measures in respect of permitted development rights should be taken forward through secondary legislation.

Motion G agreed.

Motion H

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 38A.

38A: Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate for chalk stream protection to be dealt with by spatial development strategies.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak also to Motions H1, K and K1. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for their amendments in lieu relating to chalk streams and environmental delivery plans.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for tabling Lords Amendment 38B. I also thank him for his letter, which I received today; I hope to respond to him in my remarks from the Dispatch Box. His amendment moves away from the wide-ranging amendment that he previously sought to add to the Bill, which was not workable. This amendment seeks to introduce guidance for how strategic planning authorities must take into account the need to define, protect and enhance chalk streams through spatial development strategies. I recognise and appreciate the positive intent of the amendment, and I emphasise once again that the Government are absolutely determined to restore and improve the nation’s chalk streams. I should highlight that any provisions in regulations made by statutory instrument are legislative requirements, rather than guidance; this amendment refers to both terms.

We set out in the other place that we do not believe that legislation requiring spatial development strategies is the best place to protect these vital ecosystems. Furthermore, new legislation on this specific matter would duplicate existing policy on the issue—policy that we have already committed to update with specific reference to chalk streams. Strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s-length bodies, such as the Environment Agency, that have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas; those are the two main issues that affect the viability of chalk streams. The spatial development strategies will be high-level frameworks for housing, growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites.

Importantly, spatial development strategies will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. As locally led spatial exercises, those local nature recovery strategies will—drawing on river basin management plans—be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them. Local nature recovery strategies, which include important chalk streams in Wiltshire, Berkshire and Norfolk, are already doing this. We want to build on these welcome efforts. I can, therefore, make it clear today that, in responding to this amendment in the other place, the Government committed to amend statutory guidance to encourage chalk streams to be featured prominently in local nature recovery strategies going forward.

On the planning system, which is obviously the focus of this Bill, it remains the Government’s view that the conservation of chalk streams is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy, which applies to all tiers of the planning system from strategic policies to individual planning applications. As per the commitment made by the Housing and Planning Minister in the other place on 13 November, which I referred to a moment ago, the Government will now include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision-making that we intend to consult on before the end of this year. This will ensure that chalk streams are explicitly recognised as features of high environmental value in national planning policy; and that clear expectations are set for plan-makers and decision-makers in respect of managing the impacts of development on these sensitive water bodies.

As noble Lords are well aware, among the most pressing of the multiple pressures facing chalk steams are systemic issues in the water system. The Government are absolutely determined to take bold action to address pollution and over-abstraction. Measures that will safeguard and restore chalk streams are already embedded into our ambitious programme of reforms to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.

Although it does not directly relate to the planning system, in order to provide noble Lords with additional reassurance on the Government’s intentions in this area, I can commit today that the Government will embed actions to improve chalk streams into the water White Paper, which will be published before the end of the year. That White Paper will feed directly into the development of forthcoming legislation in this area.

I appreciate entirely the strength of feeling on this issue. The Housing and Planning Minister and I have very much appreciated the considered engagement that we have had on this matter, as well as the opportunity to discuss how we can best achieve what are, ultimately, shared priorities. I hope that, through the assurances the Government have now provided in respect of the water White Paper, the LNRS statutory guidance and forthcoming changes to national planning policy, noble Lords are reassured that these vital ecosystems will soon get the recognition and protection that they deserve.

I turn to Amendments 40B and 40C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. The other place has chosen to reinstate the original drafting of Clause 55—now Clause 63—so that EDPs are no longer limited to a closed list of environmental impacts. I am incredibly grateful for the continued engagement on this amendment from Peers, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis, Lady Young and Lady Grender, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Roborough, who have given up their time to work with the Government to consider this issue. These discussions have made it clear that the aim of the original amendment was not to restrict the ability of EDPs to support environmental features where appropriate but to seek assurances in two key areas: how the Government will prioritise EDPs going forward; and how we will embed the lessons from early EDPs into the future pipeline of EDPs.

The proposed amendment in lieu seeks to develop this position, but I will make further commitments on these points today; I hope that they will provide noble Lords with the assurances they need to support the Government’s position. Before I set out these commitments, I again highlight that the nature restoration fund is a targeted tool designed to address the specific impact of development on a specific environmental feature. This targeted approach means two things: first, that an EDP would only ever be brought forward where there is a clear case that an environmental feature is affecting development consent, as it simply would not make sense to bring forward EDPs where there is no need to do so; and, secondly, that an EDP could only ever be put in place where conservation measures would materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature.

As was highlighted in the other place, it is right that we are guided by the science. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has particularly strong feelings about this, and she is quite right to have them. The legislation ensures that the design, making and delivery of EDPs are evidence-led. As we set out in the other place, we know that strategic approaches can work for both sites and species, as demonstrated through the district level licensing scheme for great crested newts and our experience of nutrient mitigation schemes to date.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill requires Natural England to notify the Secretary of State of its intention to develop an EDP, which ensures that the Secretary of State has direct oversight of the development of EDPs as well as their role in considering whether to formally approve an EDP. This clear mechanism ensures that there is clarity as to when a new EDP is being prepared. Of course, all EDPs will be subject to public consultation before they are sent to the Secretary of State to consider.

On learning from the early EDPs, the Bill provides a number of important safeguards. The first is the ongoing requirement for monitoring, which will ensure that conservation measures are performing as intended, with back-up measures being deployed if there is underperformance. This not only ensures that EDPs are subject to ongoing review but goes beyond the monitoring requirements under the existing system and means we will capture important data about the performance of conservation measures, which will inform future EDPs.

The second key limb in the legislation is the reporting requirements, which set minimum reporting periods for individual EDPs that reinforce the monitoring provisions by requiring a further assessment as to whether the EDP is on track to meet the overall improvement test.

There is also a wider annual reporting requirement across the entire nature restoration fund, which will set out all the EDPs that are in force as well as the pipeline of any EDPs being prepared. Taken together, we hope it is clear that the Bill provides assurances, both at the point of development of EDPs and through to implementation, that EDPs can be used only where they can be shown to work.

However, throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have sought to ensure that all parliamentarians and stakeholders can have confidence that the new regime would deliver the win-win for development and nature that we envisage. With this in mind, we want to provide additional assurance that EDPs will be appropriately sequenced.

As we have set out before, the nature restoration fund is self-limiting by design, in that an EDP can be put in place only where it can be shown to materially outweigh the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature using the best available scientific evidence.

However, as a first step in respect of sequencing, I commit that the first EDPs will address nutrient pollution only. This is an area where we have substantial first-hand evidence that a strategic approach works. It is also an area in which Natural England has already proved its expertise in supporting the delivery of mitigation across the country. Taking this approach will therefore provide us with a useful test case to demonstrate both the impact of EDPs and Natural England’s ability to deliver. We will then pay particular attention to the results of the regular monitoring and reporting of these early EDPs. These monitoring and reporting requirements ensure transparency and provide the opportunity for both government scrutiny and external scrutiny of the ongoing impact and delivery of EDPs.

From our engagement across the Bill, we know that independent and expert bodies, such as the Environmental Audit Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection, may wish to undertake scrutiny of this kind. This will support the assurance of the nature restoration fund’s delivery and evolution. The Government look forward to working closely with these bodies as we move forward with the nature restoration fund.

While the Bill provides for this transparent approach, I will also commit to the Government returning to the House once the first nutrient EDPs are made to issue a statement on the initial learnings from their development and implementation. It will only be after the House has seen this statement that a Secretary of State will make any further EDPs on other environmental issues. While Natural England may wish to undertake preparatory work in parallel on potential future EDPs, this approach will ensure that any learning from the first nutrients EDP is considered before any EDPs beyond nutrients are made and operational.

As we move forward with implementation, we are incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for their offer to continue to work with the Government as we progress with developing crystal clear guidance to ensure that developers, environmental groups and communities can navigate this new system effectively. This collaborative approach will ensure the targeted tools unlock the positive outcomes that I know we all want to see. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches and many other noble Lords have challenged the necessity for Part 3 throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. The Government have made a number of amendments, which have improved the Bill, to reintroduce nature protections and give more comfort on the Bill’s operation in relation to nature and the rural economy. We also welcome the Minister’s assurances and commitments around the use of compulsory purchase powers.

However, we supported the restriction of EDPs to nutrient neutrality, water and air quality in Committee and on Report, as well as protections for our chalk streams. The application of nutrient neutrality rules by Natural England is the major restriction on planning related to the natural environment. Before I go on, I again draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer, landowner, forester, and a developer of housing, commercial premises, and renewable energy.

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Young of Old Scone, for pursuing these restrictions on EDPs, and all those who supported them. The Minister has been generous with her time and that of her officials throughout the passage of this Bill, and our discussions around these and other amendments have been thoughtful and constructive. I am grateful for the Government’s commitments and concessions laid out today. They may not go as far as we might have wished. However, these commitments will allow Parliament to scrutinise the progress of EDPs and hold the Government to account over their extension—although I doubt, as a hereditary Peer, that I will be here to be part of that.

I want to put two challenges related to nutrient neutrality to the Minister. The Government refused to accept my amendments that sought not to reimpose habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. My Division was narrowly disagreed with. I have made the Government aware that, since that debate, this issue is already restricting planning consent, with a further 550 homes likely to be blocked in Somerset, as the council anticipates the reintroduction of those regulations in this Bill. What consideration has the Minister given to preventing the Bill blocking new housebuilding in this way?

Natural England provided some interesting data in response to freedom of information requests. In 2023, it promised Ministers to unlock 40,000 homes from nutrient neutrality restrictions with £33.5 million of taxpayer funding. In responding to this freedom of information request, it disclosed that it has spent over £28 million, including over £4 million on administration, and generated enough units to unlock only 11,000 homes. The scrutiny of these EDPs will need to be forensic and rigorous before Natural England should be allowed and trusted to attempt them in far more complicated areas.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the Government have made thoughtful concessions. We on these Benches are satisfied that this will provide a good opportunity for scrutiny.

Chalk streams face urgent and growing pressures, as others have laid out in this debate, yet the tools we rely on to protect them are still not fully in place. The Government have pointed to local nature recovery strategies as part of the solution, but without the long-promised regulations giving them real weight in the planning system, they simply do not have the bite required. Given the scale of the threat from development footprints, pollution and overabstraction, we cannot afford further delay, nor can we wait until 2030 for the abstraction licence reforms to take effect. We must ensure that spatial development strategies can direct development away from vulnerable chalk stream catchments. It is a practical and necessary step to prevent irreversible harm to these globally rare habitats. Although we support Amendment 38B’s intent, we would not be able to support it in a Division today, for the reasons laid out by my noble friend Lady Scott, but we will look to find other avenues to push forward this agenda.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, but I want also to give a general statement of thanks to everybody who has engaged with this Bill. We have discussed a huge variety of topics and gone through some very technical issues. I have been very grateful for noble Lords’ patience as I have sought to find answers to the questions that have arisen during our debates, but also for the willingness—which is the best aspect of this House—to move these debates forward constructively and helpfully. I have really appreciated that, and I am very grateful for the many meetings that we have had and the late nights that we have sat over the course of this Bill. I give you all my great thanks for that work.

I will respond now to some of the points raised in the debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich mentioned that local nature recovery strategies do not capture the catchment area of a river. He points to the exact reason why we think the water White Paper and the Bill that will follow it are vital for the proper protection of chalk streams that we are all seeking. We know the main issues facing chalk streams. I cannot remember who talked about it—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—but I too have stood in more than one chalk stream, because I live in Hertfordshire, where we have a lot of them, and I know that the issues of abstraction and pollution cannot be addressed in this way. They need to be addressed through the forthcoming water Bill, and my colleagues in Defra are keen to do that. The National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out planning policies and decisions, should protect chalk streams as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value, and local plans should identify, map and safeguard them as local wildlife-rich habitats.

I liked the phrase that the right reverend Prelate used, which was that housing and development should fly in formation with nature. I totally agree. I hope that, as we have gone through the process of the Bill, noble Lords will have noted that it is the Government’s intention, as we pursue the building of homes and infrastructure, to see a win-win for both nature and development in order to deliver what we need while protecting the important natural resources around us.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her remarks. I know that the concerns around EDPs are real. She spoke about our ambitious and bold new framework, but we have listened. In local government we have a test-and-learn approach, because we all learn from each other as well as from things we have done ourselves. I hope the noble Baroness and other Peers will agree that the commitments I have set out today enable us to do that with EDPs as well. I am grateful to her and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for all the work that they have done on this issue. Their flow chart was a great help. I was not trying to mark their homework, and I hope they will forgive me; we were just trying to expand the flow chart that they had made, to make it, I hope, more helpful. We will continue to work with them on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, asked about consultation. Natural England is required to consult the public and any public authority that it considers relevant on a draft EDP for a period of at least 28 working days. Natural England must seek the views of relevant local planning authorities as part of its consultation. I am afraid it is not possible to give a timeframe for when we will return to the House ahead of the first EDP being developed. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that each EDP will need to include monitoring requirements that will form part of the draft EDP when put out for consultation, so she will see the timeframe set out as we bring those EDPs forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said she did not like the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection, the organisations that I was looking to, to work with Natural England. Natural England will have the data, but those organisations will help provide the scrutiny for this. Without using those organisations, I do not know where we go with that, but I hope we will be able to convince her that they are organisations that can do this effectively. We are willing to listen to any suggestions that she may have.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her welcome for the EDPs issue. I understand that she may have ongoing concerns on chalk streams, although I hope I have reassured her on some of those points.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to the plethora we now have of habitat regs, EDPs and biodiversity net gain. We need to simplify the guidance on this, and I hope that he will continue to work with us on that mission.

My noble friend Lady Young spoke about clarity for developers. That is exactly what we are trying to deliver as part of the Bill, and I am grateful to all Peers who have helped us to do that.

I hope I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on the independence of scrutiny. We want to use organisations that are well respected to help with the scrutiny of the EDPs.

I will reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on the habitat regs on Ramsar sites in Somerset. On the issue of Natural England data and unlocking homes, these things have a cumulative effect, so I hope that the money that Natural England has spent will help it to have the structures and processes in place to continue to work with us to deliver the homes that we all want to see. I hope that that work is ongoing. I look forward to working with Natural England and others.

In the meantime, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords of our intention to protect our precious chalk streams. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, I live in Hertfordshire; it is definitely in my interests to protect those chalk streams. I believe that we now have the right processes in place, and I hope that the reassurances we have given over the sequencing of EDPs will help noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The Minister gave me encouraging reassurance about independence and referred to two bodies that would be doing the monitoring and evaluation. Could she repeat for me—I think I missed it—which bodies they are? Are they fully independent of Natural England and the Environment Agency?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have not made an approach to these organisations, so I do not want to commit them to doing this, but if the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection wanted to get involved in the scrutiny of EDPs, we would be very happy to facilitate that.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this debate and in particular the Minister, for her customary care in the answers she has given us.

What we agree on, across all sides of this House, is that chalk streams are precious, irreplaceable habitats that are gravely endangered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for giving a sense that he would like to continue to press this in other ways. My view remains that we need clear legal protections for chalk streams and other irreplaceable habitats so that developers and planners know where they stand and the public can be reassured that protections will not easily be wiped out overnight. With this in mind, I seek to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A.

39A: Because the Commons consider that the proposal is impracticable and would unreasonably fetter decision-making around the use of land.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 40A.

40A: Because the Commons consider that the test for making an EDP (the overall improvement test) provides robust environmental protection, so it is not necessary to limit the scope of EDPs to only certain types of environmental impact.