English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 196EC to Schedule 26 fairly sets out some of my concerns, which, having listened to the noble Baroness, I am sure are shared by others in the Room. I tabled it in part to probe how Ministers will determine the new pattern of unitary councils. I appreciate that, by and large, they will be shaped by the submissions being made by current local authorities to the department, but my concern is that there is little thought or discussion about the size, shape or culture of the new councils.

The Government’s White Paper, published in December 2024, was clear that unitary councils should have

“a population of 500,000 or more”.

It argued that this would be

“the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks”.

The White Paper also said that

“reorganisation should not delay devolution and plans for both should be complementary”.

The Government have sensibly delayed the election of a number of the combined mayoral authorities and slowed the process down. Until the last general election, the pace of devolution was rather more measured, which was wise. Understandably, the new Government want to get a move on with their major reforms. At the same time, we will be asking the combined mayoral authorities and the new unitary councils to deliver much of the Government’s growth agenda and their political priorities in education, housing, childcare, nursery provision and so on. Quite right, too: they are the vehicles for a lot of those things, in particular transport. But the idea that these new and very powerful institutions will be capable of delivering new policies and plans while simultaneously creating themselves is something of a stretch. When Brighton and Hove City Council was set up back in 1997, we wisely gave ourselves two and a half years of preparation, including one year as a shadow authority. None of these structures will have that luxury.

It is well known that I favour unitary councils and have long argued for them, but they have to be well grounded to work and, to be well grounded, they have to be based on recognisable boundaries that have a clear relationship with local geography and a sense of community. My authority, Brighton and Hove, is constrained by the downs and, for that matter, it makes sense. It is a place, and place-making, as the Government say clearly in the White Paper, is of great importance not just to government but, more importantly, to communities. Make the unitaries too big and start tying urban and rural districts together and you lose that. You also lose the sense of community identity.

In the past, when unitary authorities were established, many place names were lost. I go back to 1974: who knew that Sefton was Southport and Bootle, or that Kirklees subsumed places such as Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Batley? Kirklees is the name of a hall on an estate, some of which is, I think, in the neighbouring borough of Calderdale. My point here is that place-making and community building, which are surely part of the stuff of local government, rely on the ability to be readily identified so that people can understand who is responsible for what and in whose name. Abolishing a lot of the place names, as the last local government review did in 1974, risks depriving people of that ready point of identity, which would be unfortunate and wrong.

Currently, looking at the size of authorities, we have few that fit the 500,000-plus margin—just nine: Birmingham, Cornwall, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, County Durham, Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire. It is an open question as to whether their size makes them more efficient; it is possible that it makes them more remote. The more remote they are, the more citizens feel left behind and left out, and less engaged and able to influence local decision-making.

For that reason, my amendment seeks to ensure that, in making a direction on the future pattern of local councils in a given area, the Secretary of State must have regard to local geography, because of its influence on travel and community relations; the sense of identity that the new authorities will take on in terms of places and communities; and whether it is wise simply to glue together urban and rural areas for administrative convenience. Additionally, the environmental and financial sustainability of a council area, and its proposed size, have to be considered.

The White Paper seemed to assume the bigger the better and that savings would flow. I am less convinced. If I look back to the unitarisation of Berkshire in 1998, for example, when the council was broken up into six unitaries, all then had to find directors of social services, education, environment and highways. A similar impact will be felt with the unitarisation that takes place under combined mayoral authorities.

I suspect most councils have stripped out excessive costs over the past 15 years and most will have come from back-office mergers. There may be savings in the administration of council tax as larger council tax areas come into view, but the integration of many district council systems into new unitary council tax collections will certainly come at a cost.

To conclude, I have a number of questions for the Minister. Can she confirm that a fixed size for unitaries—the 500,000 figure—has been dropped? Do the Government have a number in mind? Will the Secretary of State be mindful of ensuring that mergers respect the need to have identifiable boundaries that respect urban and rural differences and the historical bases of councils, to enable place-making and help with community resilience? Can we be assured that resources will be in place to ensure a seamless transition from the current pattern of districts into larger unitaries?

What steps will the Government take to guarantee a level of democracy that makes councils accessible to local electors and residents? The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made the point that councillors already work hard. The White Paper confirmed that the number of councillors would reduce—that is pretty obvious, really—but can we be assured that councillors will be sufficient in number, and well enough resourced and supported, to represent the inevitably larger communities that they will be part of?

I do not oppose unitaries; in fact, I am rather keen on them. I do not oppose devolution, but it has to be done at a pace, and in a style and manner, that works for local communities to ensure that democracy, demography and community identity are preserved, because place-making should be at the heart of the changes. We all need to be assured that that will be the case.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I add my voice in support of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Everything he said makes a great deal of sense. It is hugely important to consider the identity of the authorities being created in terms of their communities and place-making. I am also tempted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in her opposition to Clause 57 standing part, because it makes no sense to introduce this additional tier of local government at the same time as supposedly simplifying it by reducing two tiers to a single tier. To do this at the same time is likely to result in more costs, endless local government arguments and unhappiness.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It was thee and me, yes—that was the sum total who voted against. I think that we were right and history has proven that to be the case. I am still trying to get my head around where the fire and rescue service sits in the combined authority of North Yorkshire. I am concerned that now it is going to be even more complicated if, having elected a mayor for York and North Yorkshire, as the noble Baroness has highlighted, this will now pass to the mayor.

This is causing me concern because I raised the point elsewhere about the number of BESS projects—basically clean energy projects, particularly battery storage projects and solar farms—across North Yorkshire and the lack of consulting with fire and rescue authorities, because they are not statutory consultees. I believe that that has highlighted a gap in the structure at the moment. I use this opportunity to ask the Minister—I see that we have switched places; sliding doors and switching places is a theme for today—how that will impact on a county such as North Yorkshire, or York and North Yorkshire, if there is going to be no democratic oversight and no accountability, if that is the current understanding in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is on to something here and I would like to listen carefully to how the Government plan to monitor this. I do not believe that rural counties have really been considered in the mix of things. Clearly, it is an oversight if fire and rescue authorities are not being consulted as statutory consultees to such major projects. For all the reasons that she gave, I think that another lacuna has been identified by Amendment 170 in the great scheme of things and I look very much to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I am rather confused about this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. In an earlier discussion, the Committee debated the appointment of commissioners to assist mayors with responsibility for matters such as police and crime and fire and rescue.

I strongly agree with the observation of the noble Baroness that it is not very democratic to replace elected police and crime commissioners with appointed commissioners assisting strategic mayors, or indeed to replace them with deputy mayors. But I think that we need more consistency, because the public will become very confused that quite a number of authorities are going to have commissioners assisting mayors, and the Bill seeks—especially in the clause that we are now discussing—to appoint deputy mayors. I want to ask the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, how they see the difference between commissioners and deputy mayors. Are they effectively the same and is that not going to be confusing?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be here at the previous sittings—I had clashes of different obligations in the Lords last week.

I want to pick up from what my noble friend Lady Pinnock called the structural consistency issue. In preparing for the speech that I am going to make on Amendment 195, in the past few days I have read through a number of recent reports, including Labour Party as well as government and parliamentary reports on the governance of England, and I am struck with the frequency with which everyone from Gordon Brown through to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee say that one thing that we should be aiming for is consistency in the boundaries of different authorities so that, as far as possible, they coincide and the question of accountability is therefore relatively clear.

I was therefore struck when the Ministry of Justice produced a White Paper on policing that suggests that we might change the current structure of police forces in England—in Yorkshire that at least now coincides with the four mayors—by perhaps six to eight police authorities, which would not coincide at all with the 30 to 35 strategic authorities that we are heading towards in Britain.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting set of amendments so far, but what strikes me about them is that they all seem to run counter to the principle of election—be that either direct or indirect election—and we need to be very careful about that.

I have given notice to oppose that Clause 9 stands part of the Bill for two reasons. First, elections are important for public posts that require the expenditure of large sums of public money. I believe that most of those positions should be elected. Secondly, there is a huge absence of detail in the proposal within new paragraph 9 in Schedule 3 for the appointment and scrutiny of commissioners.

The Explanatory Notes at paragraph 74 states that commissioners will be,

“independent appointees, made by and accountable to the mayor”.

I have difficulty understanding quite how they will be independent if they are made by and accountable to the mayor and function, as the Explanatory Notes explain in the same paragraph, as “extensions of the mayor”. Can the Minister say in what way they are independent and why “independent” does not appear in this paragraph? The Explanatory Notes then state:

“Commissioners would not replace elected members”—


and there has already been a debate about that as part of this group, but they then say that areas—whatever an area is defined as—will,

“have the freedom to use a combination of commissioners and elected members to lead on different areas depending on what works best for them”.

Will the Minister say who makes the decision about whether elected members have the capacity to lead an area of competence, whether that decision made by the mayor alone and will the appointment of commissioners be public appointments, subject to the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership? Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the posts will be advertised and subject to equal opportunities legislation. Will there be an agreed job description and a person specification? Will there be competitive interviews or is it all a matter, in practice, for mayoral patronage? Will councillors of constituent councils be able to scrutinise the full-time commissioners—for they are full-time appointments—that the mayor may decide to appoint?

Schedule 3 states that:

“The mayor must determine the terms and conditions of a person’s appointment as a commissioner”.


Can the Minister tell us what scrutiny is planned about what those terms and conditions actually are?

We should just note that the appointment of a commissioner will end when the mayor’s term of office comes to an end. That means that a mayor who decides to resign will cause all the commissioners they have appointed to lose their jobs, which are, as it says in the Explanatory Notes, full-time jobs. It seems that the clear implication of the wording of the Bill is that if a mayor was to quit the post, all those appointed by the mayor would have to leave. I seek the Minister’s clarification of that point, for that is my reading of Clause 9 and Schedule 3.

I have noted that commissioners cannot approve local growth plans, local transport plans or spatial development strategy, but they are writing them, planning them and will be advising the mayor on them. I understand the formality of a decision to approve a plan, but what the plan is and how it has got there will clearly be heavily dependent upon the commissioner.

I understand that:

“The mayor must obtain the consent of the CCA to any arrangement for a commissioner to exercise a function”,


but does that extend to the appointments process itself? I wonder why there is no discussion by the Government of using the professional expertise of local government officers. So, not only are the Government dispensing with the ballot box in terms of any form of direct election to strategic authorities, but they are simply leaving an election of a mayor, following which we simply have a world of appointments. I am very concerned about what that means. I ask myself, “Whatever happened to the primacy of the ballot box?” because commissioners will not be elected, so voters will have no say in their appointment because the electorate will elect a only mayor and will have no role after that. Indeed, unlike with a Member of Parliament, the electorate will have no power of recall of a mayor.

We then have Amendment 196A in this group on special advisers. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about them, but I have not understood the difference between a full-time commissioner and a special adviser. The noble Lord talked about a special adviser having professional expertise. I understand that professional advice is needed—of course it is—but I have not understood what is wrong with professional local government officers, with their expertise in the areas that might, at the moment, be proposed for a commissioner.

There are a lot of very important questions for the Minister to answer. The level of expenditure has been mentioned twice so far this afternoon, and the consequent level of the precept, which might then be high. We must be really careful about this and not duplicate. I remember, because I was around when metropolitan counties were abolished and we moved to joint boards, that the expertise in each of the areas of concern we have proposed was held by an individual local authority that had a lot of officers dealing with that specific policy area on behalf of everybody else. The joint boards had councillors; I was privileged to serve as a councillor on a number of those joint boards at different times.

I just do not think that the Government have gone far enough in examining how to deliver some of their proposals on, say, local transport, which used to function in Tyne and Wear with a joint board. What exactly is the problem with that? As I said last week, I fear that we have upwards mission drift in this Bill, taking powers away from established local government. I believe that to be true, but I also think that we are in danger of reinventing processes that have previously worked pretty well. I do not think that Clause 9 and Schedule 3 can stand here without us challenging what the Government intend to do because there is already a demand in this group for us to have yet more commissioners.

I am, by the way, in favour of culture’s status being raised—it is absolutely correct to do that—but I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that every area of concern should have a commissioner. Indeed, that is not the Minister’s proposal. The Government are not proposing that that should happen because there will be a mixture of commissioners, with the elected leaders of the councils of the combined authority and the strategic authority.

I shall stop there, but I hope that the Minister can allay some of my concerns around the failure of the Bill to have anything worth reading in it and with nearly everything that is going to happen next coming in the form of guidance. As I said last week, I would be happier if I knew a little more about what the Government are thinking in terms of guidance.

With that, I shall respond at some point when we come to the right moment, but I very much hope that the Minister will take on board some of my comments.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I agree very much with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just said. I have been unhappy with much of Clause 9 since I first read it, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friends have to say about it, because they have also added their names to the intention from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, to oppose the Question that the clause stands part.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for introducing this 371-page Bill. I declare an interest as a deputy lieutenant of Hertfordshire. I am well aware of the high regard in which the Minister is rightly held in our county, across the political spectrum.

Noble Lords may wonder why the Government are pushing for more elected mayors while, at the same time, forcing areas that still operate under a two-tier system to switch to a single-tier system. This move involves dismantling traditional counties and creating new unitary councils. On the one hand, the Government claim that two-tier local governments are bad, because people feel remote from decision-making—hence the push for unitary councils; on the other, they seek to impose new second-tier authorities in the form of strategic mayoral authorities through a top-down approach.

The closest level of local government to communities are town and parish councils, which deserve more attention, especially after the abolition of district councils. If the aim to replace county councils with smaller unitary councils is to bring decision-making closer to communities, why are the Government transferring powers to larger strategic authorities? Moreover, the Bill grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers, including the authority to create new strategic authorities and mayors without local councils’ consent.

I know that the Minister loves Hertfordshire, but I am concerned that the implications of unitarisation and the break-up of counties are not fully understood. The word “unitary” is horrible. I regret the destruction of our historic counties. Philip Larkin wrote in his 1972 poem “Going, Going”:

“And that will be England gone,

The shadows, the meadows, the lanes,

The guildhalls, the carved choirs”.

The guildhalls are going, including the magnificent County Hall in Hertford, where I recently attended a mayor-making ceremony. I wonder what Larkin would say about the ongoing local government reorganisation.

The Minister argues that the identity of traditional counties will not be affected by the move to unitaries. I am far from convinced. As a child, I remember that Sussex was thought of as one county but, after the Local Government Act 1972, even the lord-lieutenant’s and high sheriff’s offices were replaced by appointments for East and West Sussex. The historic counties of England were established by the Normans for administrative purposes. They have also helped to define local culture and identity. Stripped of any relevance to local government, the so-called ceremonial counties will gradually be confined to the history books and lose their practical relevance. If counties such as Wiltshire, Dorset and Buckinghamshire can basically remain as single counties, why cannot Hertfordshire and Essex?

Aside from the significant extra costs involved in setting up a new tier of local government, I am sceptical that there will be any savings from this reorganisation. Many councillors who support it do so for political not administrative reasons. Hertfordshire has been well managed as a county and the old adage—if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it—should apply in this case. The Government seem to lack understanding of the importance of community identity or of the function of history and political geography. I believe that we proceed with this compulsory reorganisation at our peril.

The argument that people do not understand where decisions are made between county and district councils is not a good reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water. The new strategic authorities created by the Bill will control most of the funding and services, such as police, fire, social care and NHS. This means that decisions affecting residents will be taken further away from communities, not closer, as the Government claim. Does the Minister believe that people will understand the complex web of new authorities—CAs, CCAs, SAs, MSAs, FSAs, EMSAs, et cetera? Most people could understand the difference between district and county councils, but the confusion began when districts stopped calling themselves district councils. I suspect that, in the future, people will have much less understanding of where crucial decisions are made.

Councillor Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network, has stated that mayors should not undermine the role of councils but work with them to drive growth, build infrastructure and deliver better local services. However, it is clear that the creation of mayors will significantly diminish the role of councils, which are undergoing expensive and unwanted restructuring at the same time. This has the makings of a disaster, particularly in the absence of strong leadership to manage such a large-scale reorganisation.

A recent headline from the Bishop’s Stortford Independent about the “dog’s dinner” of the plans for new authorities sums up the situation well. The Conservative group at Hertfordshire County Council staged a walkout on 19 November, because it was given no option to vote against all three proposed options for unitary councils. I agree with Councillor Nick Cox of the Green Party, who said that Labour’s plans are

“a coup against local democracy delivered with a smile and a flow chart … We are asked to choose between two, three, or four unitaries. That’s like asking the passengers to vote on the band’s encore when the Titanic is already sinking”.

There is a credible alternative—a single county-wide unitary authority, with as much power devolved to local town and parish councils as possible. Even in districts where the majority of councillors support one of the three proposed options, there is widespread doubt about any savings and concern about the disruption that this will cause to vital services such as social care. Some councillors fear years of chaos as new structures bed in. Anyone who believes that breaking up the county’s £1.7 billion highways deal into smaller contracts will lead to savings is mistaken.

In conclusion, the Government’s plans for local government reorganisation are fraught with risks. They undermine both local identity and efficient governance, and they add unnecessary complexity and costs without delivering any clear benefits. I look forward to working with others to persuade the Government to reconsider their approach before it is too late.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

This is not the first time we have talked about chalk streams in this Chamber. We come to them every time there is an environment Bill. They are really important not just from an environmental point of view but, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, from a cultural and heritage point of view. If the Government are serious about showing that they really want protections for the environment, now is the time to accept the amendments on chalk streams.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Bellingham—who will I think speak later in this group—and other noble Lords in their Amendment 146. I agree with everything that has been said.

Your Lordships may wonder why I am also so keen to support Amendment 147, in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who has just spoken most effectively. I declare an interest as the owner of a short stretch of the River Rib in Hertfordshire. I hope the Minister will not suggest that the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 147 is not necessary and will instead consider the arguments for special protection for chalk streams, as was accepted by the Government and supported by your Lordships’ House in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Two years ago, during the passage of that Act, I introduced an amendment designed to support a chalk stream recovery package and provide protection for our beautiful chalk streams as a specific, unique and precious natural resource.

I was delighted at that time that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, put her name to my amendment and spoke in support of it. I hope the Minister will not mind if I quote what she said:

“I am lucky enough to have spent my life living in the wonderful county of Hertfordshire. For those of you who are not aware, Hertfordshire contains over 20% of the world’s unique and special, natural and precious chalk streams.”

She continued:

“If our chalk streams were buildings, they would be UNESCO heritage sites. Let us protect them as though they were”.—[Official Report, 18/7/25; col. 2269.]


Like the noble Baroness, I was brought up in and live in Hertfordshire, and I was delighted that she appreciated the special and distinct needs of chalk streams, which have disproportionately suffered from pollution and excess abstraction. My noble friend Lord Caithness also supported my amendment. We successfully persuaded my then noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, to introduce a government amendment which broadly achieved the same purpose.

Can the Minister now confirm whether the Government intend to set explicit outcomes regarding the protection of chalk streams as specified in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? The previous Government had endorsed the “one big wish” put forward by the catchment-based approach initiative, CaBA, for statutory protection and priority status for chalk streams. Can she also say whether the Government intend to build on and maintain priority status for chalk streams? I think that she has supported the perseverance of CaBA, led by Charles Rangeley-Wilson.

The CaBA chalk stream strategy is very clear that a special status is needed for these globally rare and locally precious treasures, but progress on the strategy has been disappointing, although there has been a petition, “Don’t Abandon the Chalk Stream”, which secured enough signatures to require a government response, and the Petitions Committee of another place has requested an updated response to that petition.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained very well just now why chalk streams need special protection, so I will not repeat the points that she so ably made, but I will say that to take specific account of chalk streams in spatial development strategies would allow local authorities to provide a safety net to protect them from the indirect impacts of development where other regimes have failed to do so. Taking chalk streams into account should facilitate the action so desperately needed to curb additional demand for water and make sure that appropriate wastewater infrastructure is in place before development occurs.

The Rivers Trust is right in calling for chalk streams to be defined as irreplaceable habitats. This would minimise direct harm from development and encourage enhancement of chalk streams through the biodiversity net gain regime. The Minister supported these arguments in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. I look forward to hearing whether she still supports them in this Bill before your Lordships now.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will concentrate chiefly on Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, to which I have attached my name, but I shall briefly comment on Amendment 148, very comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Indeed, we have majored on chalk streams and I suspect we will hear a lot more about them. I am just going to cross-reference a contribution I made earlier this week about the River Itchen and the amount of plastics and fibreglass fibres that have just been discovered in new research in that chalk stream. This amendment addresses permissible activities. We do not know where those fibres in the River Itchen are coming from, but we desperately need to think about what activities we can afford to allow and what the planning permission can be beside those chalk streams. The extraction of water is the obvious issue here, but we also have to think about pollution and we really have to apply the precautionary principle to these crucial environments.

Amendment 150 says that a spatial development strategy must take account of local wildlife sites, which is crucial in this terribly nature-depleted country. There are, by a very precise count, 43,992 local wildlife sites, of which we know the status of only 15%. That is what the Wildlife Trusts say. SSSIs have greater legal protection. We know that very often does not work, but these local wildlife sites too often fall under the radar and are not sufficiently considered. They are often stepping stones for wildlife to get from one place to another crucial environment, or parts of corridors that enable wildlife communities to mix, to get genetic diversity, among other crucial factors, so it is crucial that the spatial development strategy totally takes these into account.

I think this also cross-references Amendment 152ZA, to which I shall speak briefly. I am strongly in favour of this amendment and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, for bringing it. I am sure that she is going to introduce it shortly, but it is about the welfare of animals being considered in spatial development strategies. We think about such things as light pollution, noise pollution, the cutting off of corridors and the isolating of populations. These things that human developments are doing do not sufficiently consider the welfare of animals, and they very much relate to local wildlife sites as well.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Fonthill Estate in Wiltshire, and I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill today.

Everybody recognises that we have to get more new houses built, although the failure of all Governments in recent years to control both legal and illegal migration has clearly exacerbated the shortage. However, in my view, the Bill goes too far in removing councillors’ powers to vote on local planning applications. Does the Minister really think that central government knows better than local councils when it comes to decisions on which proposed developments will improve their communities and which will be harmful and ought to be refused? This will be damaging to local democracy and will discourage talented people from seeking election as councillors, because they will be allowed to do less than they are at present.

Can the Minister tell the House how the proposed scheme of delegation is going to work, and how the Government are going to demarcate those decisions which are to be taken by civil servants from those which will be left to local planning committees? Surely, such important details as these should be in the Bill. On the other hand, there are areas where the Government could provide much more encouragement to house- builders, by removing legacy EU habitat regulations, which offer a ridiculous amount of protection to bats, for example, and other EU legacy red tape, which both the last Government and this one have been too slow to abolish.

Noble Lords may remember that, during the passage of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill, some of us worked hard across the House to obtain a consensus for providing a separate and recognised status and level of protection for Britain’s wonderful chalk streams. My noble friend Lord Benyon at that time introduced a government amendment that achieved that, and it is deeply disappointing that, in Committee in another place, Labour MPs voted against Amendment 148 to this Bill, which would have mirrored the levelling-up Act by providing equivalent and necessary protection for chalk streams in this Bill. Would the Minister commit to introducing a government amendment to replicate the protection afforded to chalk streams in that Act?

I also question why the Government are prioritising building in rural areas rather than urban ones, nearer most of the jobs, where new houses are most needed. I would also ask the Minister to explain why the Government have decided to remove hope value from the value that they place on land being compulsorily purchased from farmers and landowners. It seems particularly unfair to farmers, who have already suffered enough from cuts to agricultural subsidies and changes to NICs, especially when the purpose of compulsory purchase in such cases is obviously to develop the land for housing or energy infrastructure.

Currently, local authorities can purchase land compulsorily and then pass it to parish councils for some purposes, including building affordable homes. The Bill, as drafted, stops hope value applying to this power if it is used to deliver affordable homes. The removal of hope value would also apply to the loss payments, which are additional payments based on the property’s value, designed to cover the cost and emotional burden of having to move out of and replace the property. In general, I accept that measures in the Bill are in line with the Labour Party’s pledges for planning reform, but they miss the opportunity for an enhanced recognition of rural areas within national planning policy, particularly regarding the rural economy and rural housing.

As the CLA has pointed out, the National Planning Policy Framework does not acknowledge the differences between the sustainability credentials of a rural area versus an urban area. This negatively impacts decision-making for proposals in rural areas. The Bill introduces new environmental delivery plans—EDPs. They will set out how damage to protected species, or features of protected sites which are likely to be negatively affected by development, may be mitigated. I worry about the extensive powers being extended to Natural England, including whether it is appropriately skilled or resourced to handle this extra responsibility. What does the Minister think about this? In particular, does she really think it is proportionate to provide Natural England with compulsory purchase powers to deliver the EDPs?

Lastly, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech and, in particular, I hope she will answer my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s question about the number of acres being taken out of agricultural production for solar energy schemes.