English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, these have been an interesting set of interventions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that it is important that party-political contributions are kept to an absolute minimum when we are debating a Bill.

There is a basic issue in this group. The public have a right to expect that elected individuals do not end up with two jobs: being a mayor and being an MP. In some circumstances, it might be possible for the electorate to knowingly vote for that. However, that would be most unlikely to be the case. There is a question as to where, geographically speaking, the mayor might be the MP; it might be within the mayoral authority and it might be elsewhere. Either way, there is a clear conflict of interest, because Parliament judges the allocation of funding, for example, to the mayoral authority.

I do not think that you can have one person doing two jobs. Amendments 76 and others in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would allow that, for whatever period, there could be an overlap of both mayor and MP retaining both offices. To be absolutely clear, we think that that is wrong. I say to the Minister that these matters are important and should not be for political parties to judge alone. It should instead be clearly understood that, when people have been elected to one of the posts, they should carry out the responsibilities that they have been given by the general public.

On Tuesday, I said that if, in a mayoral authority, there had been a large number of commissioners appointed by the mayor but then that mayor decided to become a Member of Parliament, he or she would leave the mayoralty and, as the Bill is currently drafted, all the commissioners would lose their jobs as a consequence. When politicians are elected to a job, they must see the job through and do it to the best of their ability, given that the public have expressed confidence in them doing so. They have an obligation to fulfil their contract with the electorate.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will add something to the wise words of my colleagues. To us, this is about the concentration of power in the hands of one person. The powers being given to new mayors are considerable and I understand them; to some extent, I agree with them—as a directly elected mayor for 16 years, of course, I would say that, wouldn’t I? I see the two roles as completely different: a role in national government is completely different from a local, regional role. There could be massive conflicts of interest, but the key thing is that this concentrates too much power. Conservative colleagues have talked about that, but then they are quite happy to let somebody do both jobs. To our mind, that is just not rational.

The key thing is that this creates more political opportunities for more people. It also encourages mayors. The key thing about a mayoralty is that the mayors can develop their own local, independent mandate, rather than being overshadowed by national party politics. They are very different and distinct and they could be in direct conflict with each other. That is why we absolutely believe in that separation of powers.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

91: Clause 18, page 22, line 7, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (13) insert—“(14) When making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to identify and minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations under section 30 of LURA 2023, to consider and minimise any potential conflict, overlap, or duplication between the Mayor’s functions and those of other authorities or public bodies.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 91, I will speak also to Amendment 92. These amendments are the only ones in the group and concern mayoral powers and functions. Interestingly, I note that some of the wise and pertinent comments made by the noble Lords who are now not in their place regarding issues with London boroughs and the mayor, born of hard-lived experience, will apply in the new structures. So there are real lessons to be learned. I am hoping that my amendments might help avoid some of the issues raised in group 1.

The Bill, as we know, gives mayors significant new powers, and none of us underestimates what that means; hence our collective concerns. The Government clearly support mayoral ambitions as a means of fulfilling their political objectives, many of which we might all agree with. But power alone does not equal good devolution or good governance. Both depend on clarity about who does what, who decides what and who is ultimately accountable. The last thing mayors need are fuzzy boundaries if they are to do the job effectively, as I know from bitter experience. These amendments simply require the Secretary of State—let us not forget that a lot is going to be left to the Secretary of State—when making regulations or orders about mayoral functions to

“have regard to the need to identify and minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies”.

Let us be clear, the new mayors will be involved in all of this and will, quite rightly, have their fingers in every pie. If they are to make a significant difference to the regions that need them most, and to the country as a whole, they will need to be doing that. But these powers, as we know, come with a new complex structure and therefore these amendments are necessary. They simply make sure that at some point when new powers are designed, someone asks a basic question: how is this going to work alongside what already exists?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her amendments on the role of mayors. Before I respond to these amendments, I want to clarify the rationale for Clause 18. The clause will extend an existing power of the Secretary of State to provide that certain general functions may be exercised solely by a mayor. The power currently exists in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This clause will ensure that it can also apply to general functions conferred under any other regulation or Act of Parliament. The extension of this existing power reflects the broader range of routes through which functions may be conferred on strategic authorities and their mayors, once the current Bill becomes law.

Amendments 91 and 92 seek to amend this clause and prevent the potential for conflict, overlap or duplication between a mayor’s functions and those of other authorities or public bodies. As your Lordships will know, mayors of combined authorities or combined county authorities are not corporate entities in themselves. For that reason, all functions must be conferred on the underlying authority rather than directly on to the mayor. However, some functions may be designated as mayoral functions, as they are to be exercised only by the mayor. Where functions have been made mayoral, they typically relate to the management of day-to-day activities.

Key strategic decisions still require approval by the strategic authority constituent members. To give an example, all members will vote on which roads form part of a key route network, after which the mayor will be responsible for managing it. This will allow for swifter decision-making and more effective governance on day-to-day matters.

It will be important that all tiers of local government work together to benefit their communities. This is why principal local authorities will be embedded within the decision-making structures of strategic authorities as full constituent members. This will ensure that they play a central role in drawing up specific strategies and plans, such as local growth plans. Furthermore, before any new function is conferred on a strategic authority by regulations, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the constituent councils of any affected strategic authorities and any other person who exercises the function concerned. This will ensure that the views of those affected are properly considered.

I hope that, with these explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I absolutely accept that the new structures are complex and complicated. It is very easy to be seduced by the noble Baroness’s fluent explanation. My amendment was coming more from the perspective of practicalities, which was also borne out by the comments earlier that, in reality, there is overlap, with weakened scrutiny, unclear accountability and eroded public trust. I would like to feel that a lot of work was being done into what those are. We know it is probably happening, but it is all going to come later through SIs and secondary legislation. I wanted to make it absolutely clear, up front, that those overlaps and duplications will be considered, because they will be a source of conflict and friction going forward. It was interesting that the leaders of boroughs are saying that that is happening even 20 or however many years later. But, for the moment, I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rather suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and I are fishing in a similar pool here. My Amendment 196B is all about local accounting officers and is designed to help to improve the level of scrutiny and accountability for each mayoral strategic authority.

The system of departmental accounting officers and their requirement to appear before the Public Accounts Committee is often used to justify value for money—an issue that could prevent proper devolution—but this is because accounting officers are technically meant to be able to justify all spending even if, in reality, the decision to devolve to a different authority has been made. With the development of the new combined mayoral authority model, we need to learn from those models being used by the devolved Administrations where accounting officers’ responsibilities have been given to the relevant bodies.

This amendment would look to devolve AO responsibilities to new local accounting officers, who would be local and accountable to the relevant authority’s scrutiny bodies for any spending by an established mayoral strategic authority. This is loosely based on the relevant legislation for Welsh accounting officers. The relevant body here might include a local public accounts committee; the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, made the case for that.

This amendment is designed to be helpful. The Minister may say that it is unnecessary but, in my view, it would be a genuine move towards devolved accountability—in terms of models of funding and allowing places to innovate while retaining an appropriate level of scrutiny. With the development of devolved mayoral combined authorities, we need an extra layer of accountability that looks at the way in which public money is spent. For too long, local government has been burdened with more responsibility, less funding and fewer opportunities to innovate and develop; at the same time, to my way of looking at things, local authority accounting practices have not really moved on from where they were in the 1990s. This amendment is an attempt to be helpful, very much in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, spoke to his amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a brief comment on Amendment 196B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which is worth discussing further, especially given how it fits with Amendment 191 from the Lord, Lord Bichard, which I strongly support.

The question I asked myself, perhaps trying to anticipate the Minister’s response, was: would it duplicate existing audit and scrutiny arrangements? I came to the conclusion that I do not believe that it would. Audit answers the questions of whether the accounts were properly kept and whether the acceptable processes and procedures were legally carried out. But this amendment addresses a different and much more important question: is public money being spent effectively across the whole system? Audit is retrospective, siloed and looks at individual organisations after the event. Local public accounts committees, as proposed in this amendment, would look across organisations in real time. They would look at how councils, mayors and public service partners are actually working together—they are not the same things.

The Bill deliberately—and correctly, in my view—will push power and spending into shared collaborative arrangements, but our scrutiny remains fragmented, organisation by organisation. This mismatch is the gap that Amendment 191 would fill. Without it, no one body would be clearly responsible for asking very basic questions such as: is it the case that joint working is working? Is it delivering value? Are overlapping budgets aligned with agreed priorities? Are partnerships working as intended? Audit does not do that—and scrutiny committees, as currently structured, will struggle to do that.

In contrast, this amendment would enable that. It is not more bureaucracy; it is better oversight. It is not another unnecessary new layer. The amendment is enabling, not prescriptive, and it allows Ministers to integrate these committees within existing audit and scrutiny frameworks. It provides coherence and not clutter, and in fact good system-level scrutiny actually reduces duplication by exposing it.

My main reason for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, is that devolution without strong, visible accountability risks undermining public confidence. If power and money are exercised at a mayoral strategic level, scrutiny must exist at that same level. Otherwise, we are asking people to trust structures they cannot see being properly examined.

In conclusion, Amendment 191 strengthens the Bill by aligning power, spending and accountability. It complements audit and scrutiny; it does not replace them. In fact, the financial cost of not having effective system-wide scrutiny could lead to duplicated programmes, misaligned budgets and failed collaboration, which will almost certainly cost a lot more than the modest investment required to make this work well. For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will give both ideas serious consideration.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support the principle of Amendment 191 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I observe that, for the first time, we are bringing local, parish and community councils substantially into scope, for I believe that the definitions provided in Amendment 191 will do so. What has not been fully understood is that one of the second-order effects of the Bill is that it will create a significant number of larger community councils as a result.

As a result of local government reorganisation, large numbers of cities, such as Oxford, Exeter and Norwich, and former county boroughs, such as Ipswich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, which have been billing authorities hitherto, will now fall into the lower tier of local authorities. Those authorities have no constraint or cap on the amount of council tax that they can raise. In Salisbury, they have jacked up council tax by 44% in the past four years—they have let rip, and it is not good enough. There has been no scrutiny, there has been cost shunting, and the council tax payers have paid more.

I have laid amendments, which we will discuss later, that will make provision for those larger smaller authorities to fall under the constraints that all the other authorities will have. I do not seek to fetter the smallest parish council, but if you have a population that hitherto has been part of a billing authority, it is right that they should be constrained going forward, as they have in the past.

I am not sure that I entirely welcome all the provisions in Amendment 191 on local public accounts committees, but the amendment shines a light for the first time on where we will go with these smaller community parish councils. There is merit in the thrust of what has been proposed here. I wait to hear how the Minister reacts to what constraints will be placed on this new class of large parish or town council as a result of the changes proposed in the Bill.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak for the first time in the passage of the Bill. I know we do not have to address it, but I was intending to speak at Second Reading and I had to pull out for personal reasons just beforehand. This is an issue that genuinely interests me. Every time I sit in these meetings or take part in these discussions, it feels like being at Davos or the United Nations, with so many titles and vice-presidents, and I feel a bit left behind not having any myself. I am a bit like my noble friend Lord Norton in that I am merely a bystander in this, someone who is interested. I am a political geek and a taxpayer; those are my interests. Like others, I congratulate the Minister on many belated happy returns for yesterday. I can think of no better way of spending your birthday than with some of your closest friends late at night in the House of Lords.

My Amendment 12 is embryonic. We are in Committee and I am happy to have a discussion; perhaps if the Minister is still feeling jovial from her party, we can continue that joviality and have another discussion. This amendment is simple, yet it would introduce an essential safeguard into the Bill. Given that the Secretary of State ultimately has the power in the Bill to create these new strategic authorities—it lies in his or her hands—this amendment would ensure that they are satisfied that each new authority is capable of doing what is expected of it before it is created. Those capability tests should be grounded and focused, though not exclusively, on four areas: first, governance arrangements, to ensure that it is transparent, able to make decisions and face scrutiny; secondly, financial sustainability, so that it is on a sound financial footing and able to carry out the new powers and deliver; thirdly, administrative capacity, and whether it has the right people, expertise and systems in place; and, finally, accountability mechanisms, to ensure that it has credible systems for scrutiny and democratic oversight. To be clear, I envisage the same sorts of tests applying to both the new mayoral authorities and the new unitary authorities.

Ultimately, I say with respect to the Minister, this is not game playing, a stunt or an effort to stop the Bill. It is grounded in my concern that there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that, before a new authority can exist, it must be ready and able to do what it says it will. The Bill talks about their functions, voting systems and the powers they will have, yet a Bill about empowering the people has nothing about whether the system being invented will be able to, any good at or even capable of delivering better services for the people—not to mention better value for money, though that is in a future group. I am sure the Minister is looking forward to me speaking on it in due course.

I am sure that some will say that this amendment is unnecessary. Those people who object will probably fall into three rough camps. The first will say, “We don’t need to worry. It’s going to be fine. We should take what we’re given; it is what it is and we can’t go around dictating from on high what it should be like on the ground”. But that is exactly what the Bill is doing: we are dictating what the new system should be like. We are saying that there should be a plan in place and how it will work. I think we should make sure that these authorities are capable of standing on their own two feet. Given that one of the arguments for reforming local government is that it is already quite messy and difficult to navigate, we surely do not want to create a system that is even more confusing. Before we hit the “Go” button, there needs to be effort on the ground and in Whitehall to ensure that the new structures in place are robust and coherent. That is not bureaucracy, it is just accountability. One of the many fears I have about the Bill, I am afraid to say, is that if transparency and accountability are not built in from the outset, that will make it harder to understand and hold people’s feet to the fire. These tests do that.

Another argument against this amendment will be that, ultimately, it should be for the people to decide whether the authority is doing a good job or not. I am a genuinely firm believer in democracy: it is precious and unique. Of course the electorate will ultimately be the judge, but that will come only after the changes have happened, years down the track. With so many elections already being delayed because of reorganisation, there will be no checks put in place before changes take place.

Finally, I am sure that some will say that it is not possible to test something that does not exist. However, we can do so, not just in the prep work and the planning of what is intended, but in seeing whether existing local authorities are good at what they are doing already: whether they are late or slow in delivery, whether services are being cut or expanded, their finances, workforce capacity, roadworks, housebuilding—you name it. Before noble Lords feel compelled—this has happened to me before—to defend the honour of local authorities, I pre-empt this by assuring them that I am certainly not blanketly saying that all local councils are not up to it. Equally, I am not saying that Whitehall is perfect—far, far from it. I am merely saying that, before we proceed to create and approve these new authorities, there should be a system to ensure that they will work, including how they will build on, incorporate or tackle issues in the pre-existing authorities.

There is one final area I will touch on, which we have talked about in passing already. I do not want to open this up into a broad debate about local government finance, but it does have read-through here. We all know the challenges and I do not want to dwell on it, but, across the land, capabilities are not uniform. I read some research that showed that councils in the north are twice as likely to be at risk as those in the south. Then there are the associated costs of reorganisation, never mind whether the new entity is going to be any good. Some organisations are already asking whether the current wave of reorganisation will save money or in some circumstances cost even more. Yet this Bill has no requirement to test capability, never mind finances, before those new bodies are created.

This Bill should not be seen as an exercise to create layer upon layer without thinking it through first. This is a serious issue. It is about spending serious sums of money on serious things affecting the lives of many, so it is important that we get it right. Devolution is meant to be about making the system work better, and that is what is driving this amendment. I recognise that many councils will do an enormous amount of work in getting these changes right, but rather than hoping that this version of devolution works and that things do not go wrong for the taxpayer, let us put in a safeguard. Rather than rely on good intentions, let us make the system work from the outset. Trust is not enough. These simple tests, or something like them, would make sure that from the get-go the new system is better, stronger and more capable of delivering improved services for the people. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the constructive intention behind Amendment 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The desire to ensure that strategic authorities are properly equipped, financially sustainable and governed with integrity is entirely understandable. We have all seen, all too often, the consequences when structures are created without sufficient capacity or clarity of purpose. We do not want that to happen here, and this amendment seeks to guard against it. However—the noble Lord’s heart sinks—while I appreciate that instinct, we cannot support the amendment as drafted.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I have different perspectives as we come from different backgrounds—him from No. 10 and me from more than 25 years in local government, 16 of them as a directly elected mayor. To us, the amendment seems to reintroduce a centralising veto at precisely the moment when the Bill is meant to be shifting power away from Whitehall. The Secretary of State would become the arbiter of whether an area is “capable”—a term left undefined, and thus open to subjective interpretation. What one Minister might judge as prudent due diligence, another might use as a brake on local ambition. That uncertainty does not sit comfortably with our belief in consent-based, locally driven governance.

We also have to be alive to the practical effects on the ground in the places about which we have spent many long hard hours talking—those most in need of levelling up. They are often those with a much weaker starting capacity. They could find themselves locked out by criteria that they are not yet able to meet, precisely because they have not been granted the devolution tools that would help them grow that capacity. We risk creating a circular trap: you cannot have the powers until you have the capacity, but you cannot build the capacity until you have the powers.

However, we recognise that strong oversight will be necessary with changes of this magnitude. Several amendments in the names of other noble Lords show a strong appetite across the Committee for rigorous oversight, but it must be oversight that does not stray into overprescription or paternalism. I understand why there may be concerns; the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, expressed them well. My spectacles are not rose-coloured—I acknowledge that local government has not always got it right and that there have been failures, some of them cataclysmic—but, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I think that we could also say this about past Governments, Prime Ministers and initiatives.

That said, the amendment springs from a very real concern: the public must have confidence that new strategic authorities will function effectively from day one. On that point, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. There is space—and, indeed, a need—for transparency in how readiness is assessed in order to ensure that governance arrangements are fit for purpose and to avoid the creation of authorities that are destined to struggle. However, in our view, the answer is not to place broad, undefined tests solely in the gift of the Secretary of State. Instead, we might look to more balanced alternatives, such as clear statutory criteria developed with the sector rather than imposed on it. I am sure that the Local Government Association will be keen to work collaboratively on this; we could even look at greater parliamentary scrutiny rather than ministerial discretion. There is room for a serious discussion on this matter—I hope that we can hold that with the Minister.

The amendment addresses a genuine risk but, in our view, the mechanism it proposes risks undermining the very local autonomy that the Bill is meant to strengthen. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good by setting hurdles that, in some areas, those who would benefit the most will struggle to clear. I genuinely look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne goes to the heart of what effective devolution requires: capability. As he set out so clearly, it is simply not enough to create new strategic or unitary authorities in the abstract and hope that they will succeed. We can and should look at the performance of existing local authorities—including their financial resilience, their workforce capacity, the pressures they face and the services they currently deliver—to understand whether the foundations are in place for a new body to take on, in some cases, even greater responsibilities.

My noble friend was right to say that this is not about criticising local government wholesale—many councils are doing extraordinary work under immense strain—but capability is not uniform across the country. The financial challenges facing local authorities are well known. Reorganisation carries costs, and there is a real debate around whether it always delivers the efficiencies or improvements that are promised.

Against that background, it is entirely reasonable that we should expect a clear and transparent test of readiness before new strategic authorities are created. That is precisely what Amendment 12 would provide. It proposes that, before any strategic authority or unitary authority is established, the Secretary of State “must be satisfied” that it has the governance, financial resilience, administrative capacity and accountability mechanisms that are necessary to exercise the functions conferred upon it. These are not burdensome hurdles; they are basic safeguards to ensure that a new authority is set up to succeed, not set up to struggle.

New Homes: Target

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can give the noble Lord that assurance. We are determined to make sure that, as we go through the process of building the 1.5 million homes, enough social and affordable housing is included in that target. He will know that I take particular care to not conflate the terms “affordable housing” and “social housing”; they are different things. We have to make sure that we do our best in that regard. From the £39 billion that we have allocated for affordable housing, 60% will be for social housing.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, local planning departments are often cited as a blockage to building more homes, yet fewer than 40% of those local authorities are operating with an adopted plan. As the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill moves through Parliament, what action are the Government taking to ensure that local government reorganisation, with its many new structures, planning powers and inevitable changes of political control, is not used as a delaying tactic to produce an up-to-date plan, which strong anecdotal evidence suggests is happening?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is essential that the local government reorganisation and devolution process does not hold up the production of local plans. My Government have made that absolutely clear and are following up with councils that have delayed local plans. Where the new strategic plans are being made, they can be made in spite of reorganisation, and the data used for them will be transferred as soon as the reorganisation arrangements are complete.

National Plan to End Homelessness

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Gateway 3 New-build Applications

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just said. Unlike my predecessor, I have no intention of trying to petition for parts of the diocese of Chester to become parts of the diocese of Manchester, just because of the urban sprawl extending—but I rise to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller.

I have served on the boards of a lot of large institutional investors. One of them, the Church Commissioners, had a particular interest in one of the major landowners in the country. I can well see how for an institutional investor that wants to invest in something that is a social good, like building towns, and wants to do it for the long term, because it is interested in long-term return and not just what the next quarter’s figures are going to be, being able to invest in these kinds of things would be the right way to go. Should the noble Lord put this to the vote, I would hope to be with him in the Lobby.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am broadly in favour of the amendments in this group. As a general principle, we are in favour of any amendments that are genuinely about devolution and not just decentralisation. As we are all aware, there is a significant difference. However, we are aware that this brings issues of governance and accountability that are new to much of the sector at this level, with the difference in governance arrangements and in geography.

We also support the Government’s ambition and political will to build new towns to meet our challenging housing need. But—and it is a big “but”—we nevertheless feel that something as significant, important and impactful as designating a large amount of land for a new town should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. Everyone’s voices deserve to be heard—and I understand that there is a difference between being heard and being listened to. However challenging and difficult that might be, the process is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, outlined. Increased scrutiny and the opportunity for revision are essential. We have to get this right for the people and for Parliament. Thus, we too welcome a debate on the new towns agenda and on the sites already designated.

I turn to Amendment 238. It seems to us an inevitable consequence of the new development corporations’ ambitions, roles and responsibilities. If devolution is to really mean something, it must also mean fiscal devolution. It is very unlikely in the present economic climate that any new major developments are going to be totally government funded, so it makes sense to cast the financial net as wide as possible. But—and, again, it is a big “but”—given some local government history on these and related matters, we assume that the Treasury will be concerned about rising debt and potential poor financial controls. With the discredited PFI funding also in the background, it will be concerned also about potential poor value for money. We are concerned that there should be the necessary protections and processes for good government, transparency and accountability. I wonder whether the Government may envisage a more proactive role in this regard for the National Audit Office before investment decisions are made.

Finally, a key question, which my noble friend Lord Shipley raised in Committee, is who picks up the tab if there is a loss on a project, or on several projects, or if a mayoral development corporation is running generally at a loss. Is it the council tax payer or the Government? There was no answer in Committee. It would seem likely to be the Government but, if so, it would be reasonable for them to be involved at all stages of project delivery, which makes Amendment 238 insufficient without explaining what controls would be in place. However, we would still support Amendment 238, because it gives a sense of the direction that we should go in, even if the detail is not yet in place. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, on Amendments 235 and 236, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, all I can say is that we support all the intentions of these amendments so ably introduced, as always, by my noble friend. I do not think there is anything more that I can add to what he has already said, apart from saying to the Minister that I think these important questions need answers tonight.

Alongside my noble friend Lord Jamieson, I have co-signed Amendment 238, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller. Ensuring that development corporations have access to sufficient finance will be critical, as we have heard, if we are truly to deliver the high-quality new towns and new developments that we would all like to see. Having access to a range of finance resources is a key component to this, empowering development corporations to seek finance from the widest possible range of sources. This amendment would allow them to do precisely that—to access funding not only from the Public Works Loan Board but from private capital, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, and through value-in-kind contributions as part of joint ventures. Crucially, it would also give them the ability to issue bonds, either individually or collectively with other development corporations.

Why does this matter? I suggest three key reasons. First, it enables collaboration. Development corporations could work collectively across areas, pooling capacity and scale to unlock investment in major regeneration and infrastructure projects that would otherwise be out of their reach. Secondly, it opens the door for local pension funds, particularly the Local Government Pension Scheme, to invest directly in their communities. This builds on the Government’s own commitment to mobilise LGPS capital for local growth. It would mean that people’s savings are working to deliver tangible, long-term benefits in the very places where they live and work. Thirdly, it aligns with the Government’s broader ambitions on devolution and local growth. Page 29 of the English Devolution White Paper makes clear that strategic authorities will have a duty to deliver on economic development and regeneration. Local authorities will be required to produce local growth plans, and LGPS administrating authorities are expected to identify local investment opportunities and put them forward to their asset pools.

This amendment would therefore help the Government achieve precisely what they have set out to do: to channel more of the nation’s long-term capital into productive place-based investment. It would empower development corporations to be proactive, innovative and financially self-sustaining, drawing on both public and private sources of finance to deliver growth, regeneration and prosperity for local communities.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 90 relates to the content of the spatial development strategy and seeks to insert into the Bill the requirement that the strategy should include

“an amount or distribution of development for employment, industrial, logistic or commercial purposes, the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.

This is alongside the amount or distribution of housing and the amount or distribution of affordable housing. We had this debate in Committee, so I will not dwell at length on the reasons why I think it is necessary. The Committee debate demonstrated that there was widespread support among Members of the Committee for the inclusion of this in a spatial development strategy.

I want to just focus on one issue and one question to the Minister. We have agreed substantially on these issues, not least on the question of joint spatial development strategies back in the debate on the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. The issue, which I do not think was really raised properly in Committee, is that the spatial development strategy must be, by definition, about a broader area than local plans, and it gives us an opportunity to look in a strategic way at the relationship of travel to work areas, the sites for employment, the transport infrastructure that supports travel to work and the consequences from that of where people will be living, as well as working, which will lead into exactly the questions of the housing need and housing requirements that local plans must allow for in the future.

The Government have completely recognised the case for travel to work areas and the economic geography to be a basis for strategic planning. The English Devolution White Paper talks about strategic authorities being based on that kind of reasonable and functional economic geography, so I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that is exactly how strategic development strategies should be compiled.

Anybody who has put together this kind of document in the past—I had something to do with these things when we were working on the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities 20 years ago—knows that that is exactly how one goes about thinking. Even at local plan level, understanding the broader questions of what the prospects look like for employment, industry and logistics is a sound basis for determining the amount and distribution of housing.

The consequential from that is a question to the Minister. Can she tell the House that we do not need to add this to the Bill because the guidance on the spatial development strategy will be explicit and make it very clear that that is the process and that is the way in which spatial development strategies must be constructed? I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as we did in Committee, and in particular to talk about this broader area. My Amendment 92 is similar to that from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, but takes it up to a greater level.

Having grappled with an attempt to do the whole of Hertfordshire, which the Minister will remember—where each district was asking, “What are we for, and what do you want us to do and to be?”—I remember that Stevenage was very much the place for incubator businesses, and an exemplar of that, and we were very much grade-A office. We recognised the need to have that across an area or we would be competing with one another, which was ridiculous.

The key point of my amendment mirrors that and complements it, because we are trying to create sustainable communities, and we all know that that means jobs. There is no point in building shedloads of houses stretching for miles when people have to get in their car even to buy a newspaper and certainly go miles in their car to commute to a job. So, we are on board with that.

I too brought my amendment before this House previously and it is supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The basic principle that the amendment embodies is to require development strategies to include a design vision for the whole area and, as such, it would have to include the things that were mentioned in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. A design vision, as laid out in the amendment, is a clear articulation of what a place should be like in the future, developed with and to meet the needs of the local community. I will not repeat the reasons why this is vital, because I am sure that we all know.

The Minister knows that I have been very clear and vocal in my support for the Government’s move towards strategic planning. It has been missing from planning in any meaningful way for many years. However, I want to address their response when I first brought the amendment before the House—namely, and this will sound like a broken record, that there was no need for the amendment because the guidance already exists through the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, and the National Model Design Code. The reason I want to press my case again is that guidance is incredibly valuable, but it is just that—guidance. I am sure that many noble Lords here today can give countless examples of where poor-quality development has come forward contrary to a development plan. To be absolutely blunt, the pressure on planning officers to grant housing schemes is great. We should not underestimate that. I am sure that we will have all seen, despite officers’ best efforts, some pretty mediocre schemes getting approval or, worse still, agreed on appeal.

The Government have quite rightly been very vocal in their support for good design. The amendment would mean that a vision for good design must be considered throughout the development process. Setting such a precedent can only be a good thing if we want to actively create and shape the places that work for people and contribute positively to their quality of life. For me and these Benches, this is non-negotiable.

Meeting housing need is an urgent task and one that we completely agree with, but doing so in a way that serves people both now and in the future—with design quality at the heart and the forefront of placemaking—is no less than we all deserve. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, because we cannot see good design as a “nice to have”; it has to be something that we accept. It is a “must have”.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Will this Labour Government also please commit to not compromising on quality and beauty and accept this amendment? It is not good enough just to build more houses; they need to be designed well, practical and sustainable.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 112. I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Pinnock for pitching in on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in the wee small hours as I attempted to get my last train. I was very pleased to support both of the noble Lord’s amendments. I know from experience that housing for older people is still the Cinderella of the sector. I also publicly thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his persistence on the issue to improve homes as we age. Never before has the need for building standard M4(2) been more necessary. It is very short-sighted of successive Governments not to grasp this nettle, because retrofitting, as has been said, is difficult and expensive. I would therefore quote the chant “Why are we waiting?”, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Amendment 91, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, recognises the need for design in spatial development strategies, so I hope that she will support my amendment in the next group.

On Amendment 112, which I also submitted in Committee, I am very pleased to say that we have had some productive meetings with the Minister, who has been generous, as ever, with her time. I truly believe that she understands the key issues, and I hope that she will be able to give us some assurance that the requirements within this amendment can be taken forward somehow. I look forward to her response.

Amendment 112 is a fairly simple amendment, brought to us from Centrepoint, the amazing charity for young homeless people. It is basically saying that, where a particular housing type is being set up for homeless youngsters, it should be permissible to deviate from the nationally described space standards so that the finances stack up and the total model works. Put simply, this new model, which is being called stepping-stone accommodation, provides for smaller accommodation than what would be prescribed, but it is very much more than okay for youngsters leaving care, those who have been sofa surfing or those who are trying to get off the streets. It is their own home, with their own front door. I waxed lyrical about the quality of this accommodation from my visit, and I will not repeat myself. However, it is important to say that it was designed with young people and that they love living there.

The Minister said, in her response to me, that councils, in their plans, can already do this; it is permissible. She is right, and while it is acknowledged that nationally described space standards are not in themselves mandatory, the practical reality has proved to be rather different. Local planning authorities, as a matter of course, look to these standards as the primary point of reference when formulating policy. Consequently, where discretion is left to local interpretation, planning determinations become protracted, frequently extending over a number of years. In Committee, I described cases that involved anything between two and four years of additional time and costs for these charities, which can ill afford to have to pay that extra money.

These are not isolated occurrences. Rather, they reveal a systemic problem in which essential provision for vulnerable young people is stalled by prolonged and often unnecessary debate over standards.

This amendment would allow planning officers and committees to move these applications forward, at speed and with confidence. Estimates indicate that as many as 30,000 of these homes will be required in England alone. It is for this reason that the amendment remains indispensable. By establishing a clear and immediate exemption, it would provide certainty to local authorities, prevent unnecessary obstruction and expedite the delivery of much-needed accommodation.

We hope that the Minister can give Centrepoint and other homelessness charities—which are watching this—some real incentive to continue their excellent work and feel confident when approaching council officers for the exemption from the prescribed national space standards, and to be listened to and supported for this very specific and narrow course. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make a quick point. If you are trying to build a lot of houses, you have to sell them. The rate of sale determines the rate of building: if you do not sell the houses, the builder goes bankrupt because houses are very expensive to build. As a result, it would open up the market much wider if we incorporated these standards for access, because more people would be in the market who could buy them. It must help the rate of sales, because there is a bigger market. Why not do it? I cannot see why not. We are assured that it does not cost any more to do it, so it seems silly not to.

On smaller houses, people who travel live in caravans and motor homes and are very happy doing that. Why are we trying to be so prescriptive about the size of houses? If you build a house of a size that is going to sell, why not?

--- Later in debate ---

As noble Lords know, we must build more homes in order to tackle the root causes of homelessness. The Bill underpins our commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament, and we have confirmed a new 10-year £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. The current planning framework already allows local planning authorities to do what this amendment seeks to achieve. Each planning application is judged on its own individual merit, and the weight given to competing material considerations is a matter for the local planning authority. For example, it could be that an authority considers the need for a particular type of housing tenure to outweigh local policy around space standards, when considering all relevant material considerations. We should leave that choice and decision in the hands of local authorities for the reason that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, gave: it is important that we do not undermine the wider picture in relation to space standards.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I absolutely understand those points; as a localism person, obviously I agree with that. However, the key issue is that planning officers are playing “safety first”. Their immediate response is, “No”, for the reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, set out earlier. Is there any way we can strengthen the guidance to refer to “stepping stone” accommodation as something that the Government might look favourably on or permit? The current experience is that planning officers are hitting a brick wall each time. I totally understand why it cannot be in the Bill, but I do not see why we cannot put something into guidance that strengthens their arm when they sit down at the first meeting to discuss the matter.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for making those points. The best thing might be to have another meeting outside the Chamber to discuss what we might do. I understand the point she is making; perhaps planning officers are being overly cautious because they do not recognise that they already have such a power. I am happy to meet her outside the Chamber to discuss how we might move forward on that issue. I am very keen that this does not go into the Bill, because if it did, it would risk undermining the work that has been done over many years to improve the space standards that we already have for our homes. They were hard fought for and hard won, so I do not want this proposed provision to undermine them.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Thornhill]

59: Clause 48, page 61, line 6, at end insert—
“(ba) the requirement for proportionality in the level of the fee or charge, based on the nature and size of the development to which the fee or charge will apply;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that any fee or charge set out in regulations is proportionate to the nature and size of the development it applies to.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I was very pleased when this amendment was debated in Committee, as there was a very small but warm consensus that it seemed fair and reasonable. We are well aware that SMEs face many challenges, but we believe that this is a small but significant signal to them that we understand their concerns.

The problem could not be clearer: the planning system is, by its very nature, stacked against the little players—small and medium-sized housebuilders, those local and skilled firms that know their communities best. They are operating in a system designed for the big players. They already face headwinds from finance, land supply and market exposure, yet our own planning system makes these headwinds stronger. Planning fees are one of the clearest examples of how policy, unintentionally, financially disadvantages smaller builders that are already struggling to survive. Small builders now deliver only 10% of new homes in the UK, which is down from almost 50% in their 1960s and 1970s heyday. The number of SME housebuilders has fallen from more than 12,000 in the 1980s to around 2,500 today.

When we debated this in Committee, the Minister said that the Bill already provides a clear framework and that local authorities will have the flexibility to vary fees through consultation and benchmarking. This is precisely the framework that has created the problem. Benchmarking, consultation and cost recovery sound absolutely reasonable in theory, but in practice they are the very mechanisms that have produced the current imbalance. SMEs already operate under a national system built on these principles, and it has led directly to them paying far more per home than large developers. This is an evidenced fact. Simply devolving this flawed model to local authorities will not suddenly make it fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions regarding planning fees. I turn first to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which we had the pleasure of touching on briefly at our meeting last week. I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of ensuring that fees are proportionate to the type and size of the planning application. However, I respectfully suggest that this amendment is unnecessary and will explain my reasons.

The principle of proportionality already exists in the planning fees regime; in view of the noble Baroness’s comments, I give an example of why I say this. Planning application fees for fewer than 10 new houses are currently £588 per dwelling; for between 10 and 50 dwellings, fees are £635 per dwelling; and, for more than 50 houses, there is a set fee of £31,385, plus £189 for each additional house, up to a maximum fee of £411,885. The fee increases with the number of houses to be built, reflecting the cost to the local planning authority of processing the planning application. This Bill already provides a clear and strong framework to ensure that planning fees are proportionate to the type and size of development.

As mentioned in previous debates, the Government plan to introduce a local variation model—I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, was not confident of this, but talking to the sector about how we do this will be important—under which a nationally set default fee developed through benchmarking and public consultation will serve as a baseline. As is currently the case with planning fees, this will account for variations in the size and nature of sites.

To ensure that any locally set fees remain proportionate and reflective of local circumstances, the Bill requires that they must not exceed the cost of delivering the relevant service and that local communities must be consulted on those proposed changes. Significantly, the Secretary of State will also retain the power to intervene where fees are considered inappropriate; this is an important safeguard to uphold consistency and fairness across the system.

I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is concerned about SMEs. As I have said previously in the Chamber, I had a meeting last week with the APPG for SME House Builders, which raised a number of issues with me. We are all concerned about ensuring that we make things as efficient as possible for SMEs—as well as for those in the charity sector, such as Centrepoint, which the noble Baroness kindly brought to a meeting with me last week—in terms of providing much-needed homes. I assure the noble Baroness that we recognise that SME housebuilders are an indispensable part of the sector. That is why the Government have brought forward a package of financial support for SMEs, including: an extension of £700 million to the home building fund to provide loans and financial support to deliver 12,000 more homes; £2 billion of ENABLE Build guarantees; and a commitment to £100 million of funding for SME accelerator loans. In view of these measures, I am certain that the Bill already addresses the concerns that this amendment seeks to resolve. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for Amendment 60. Well-resourced planning departments are essential in enabling the development that our communities need. They also safeguard communities from unauthorised or harmful development by ensuring compliance with planning permissions and conditions, including monitoring and taking enforcement action where that is necessary. We understand the intention behind this amendment—supporting the resourcing of enforcement activity—but, because planning enforcement serves a much wider public interest, we consider that it is appropriate for local authorities to allocate funds to support these services, rather than for individuals to bear the responsibility.

Additionally, we consider that allowing local planning authorities to set planning fees that included enforcement costs could result in disproportionately high fees for applicants; indeed, it may have an impact on the very SME builders whom the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, discussed. We are concerned that this may discourage development at a time when we are very committed to accelerating housing delivery and getting Britain building. More widely, the Government have committed to a £46 million package of investment to support the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will not press her amendment.

Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would remove our ability to introduce a straightforward planning fee surcharge, instead requiring that only the costs incurred in relation to the specific planning application could be recovered. It might be helpful if I elaborated a little more to answer his questions.

We propose to calculate the surcharge on the basis of the planning fee that a developer must pay when submitting an application. We recognise that some applications will require detailed input from half a dozen consultees, while others will require little or no input. As we are not calculating the fee on the basis of application-specific costs, developers may sometimes pay more and sometimes less than the costs incurred by the relevant statutory consultees with regards to that specific application. However, we will be required to set the surcharge so that it does not exceed the relevant costs of the statutory consultees in aggregate. If it costs a certain amount to operate the statutory service, the surcharge must be set so that its income does not exceed that amount. I hope that is helpful.

We fully recognise that direct cost recovery works well for some regimes, such as for NSIPs, where there are relatively few projects. Engagement occurs over a longer period and predominantly takes place prior to the application for development consent being submitted. It also works well for voluntary pre-application engagement. It is important to note that statutory consultation under the Town and Country Planning Act regime is different: it occurs only once the planning application has been submitted. The planning authority must identify which organisations are required to be consulted, and these organisations must respond within statutory timeframes, generally of 21 days.

It is also an issue of high volume. The six largest statutory consultees receive around 50,000 consultations a year, with tens of thousands of unnecessary referrals on top of this. Instituting direct cost recovery by statutory consultees would require a billing mechanism capable of dealing with up to hundreds of thousands of planning application referrals each year, with money and information passing between 300-plus local planning authorities, up to 29 statutory consultees and individual developers. It would significantly increase the complexity of the planning system, increase the administrative infrastructure required and place a substantial pressure on the ability of statutory consultees to deliver within statutory timeframes. Our concern is that instituting this approach would be costly and bureaucratic, create uncertainty for developers over costs and create delays. Just as importantly, it would also remove any incentive for statutory consultees to deliver efficiencies.

The alternative that we are putting forward in the Bill is for a simple, straightforward percentage surcharge on top of the planning fee. This means that, in some cases, as I have said, a developer will pay more through the surcharge than it would cost the statutory consultee, and in some cases the developer will pay less. However, developers will know how much they need to pay upfront, and there will be no unexpected costs. That way we will not be creating more hoops for developers to jump through to get their application considered; they will pay a fee when they submit their application and that is it. Before regulations are introduced, we will consult on proposals to establish the level at which the surcharge will be set and the types of planning application it should apply to.

Lastly, we recognise the risk that charges could be set at inappropriately high levels and that is why our proposed powers make it clear that the surcharge cannot be set at a level which exceeds the relevant cost of the persons, such as the statutory consultees, that the surcharge is intended to cover. That ensures that we limit ourselves to cost recovery in aggregate, even if it does not apply on the basis of individual planning applications. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for this amendment but, given the reasons and explanations I have set out, I hope he feels able not to move it.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, it is of absolutely no surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spotted my drafting omission, which is why we always take his amendments seriously. I hope that the Minister will take on board his comments, which I thought were quite pertinent.

I was seeking to make proportionality a clear legal duty rather than a well-intentioned aspiration. So, put very simply, I guess it is about the proof of the pudding and “watch this space”. I hope that we will keep an eye on this, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.