I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 May 2026.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 changes the legal framework for opening new state-funded schools. It ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academies, and helps to ensure that new schools can be delivered quickly where they are needed, by enabling proposals from local authorities and voluntary organisations as additional routes to delivery. That provides greater flexibility in the system, including in circumstances where suitable academy trust capacity is limited.

The statutory instrument makes consequential amendments arising from those provisions. The amendments, which are to both primary and secondary legislation, are necessary to ensure that references to the legislative framework for opening new schools are correct and consistent across the statute book, and to update provisions to ensure that they are compatible with the new legislative framework. The amendments are minor and technical in nature and do not introduce any significant new policy.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act repeals section 6A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, relating to the presumption that new schools should be academies. Arrangements for inviting proposals for new schools are now contained in an amended section 7 of the 2006 Act. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act also replaces sections 10 and 11 and of the Education and Inspections Act with an amended section 10. The draft regulations remove references to section 6A and section 11 in other primary and secondary legislation, and replace them with references to sections 7 and 10 respectively, where necessary, providing legal clarity. The amended provisions relate to land given to a local authority on trust for educational purposes, transfer of employment, proposers of new schools, governance of new schools and local government reorganisation.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act sets procedures for the establishment of new pupil referral units by local authorities. The draft regulations extend legislation to apply to newly established pupil referral units in two cases. Currently, where a new maintained school replaces an independent school, a teacher of the independent school transferring under transfer of undertakings legislation to the new school may choose to retain their existing terms and conditions or choose to opt in to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document. The instrument extends the provision so that it applies when an independent school is replaced by a pupil referral unit, affording teachers the same choice.

Secondly, the statutory instrument applies and extends regulation 5 of the School Governance (New Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 to pupil referral units, when only one school proposal has been published under sections 7 or 10 of the Education and Inspections Act. A local authority is able to put in place governance arrangements for a maintained school in anticipation of proposals being approved. That will also apply where only one proposal for a pupil referral unit has been published. These amendments will ensure legal clarity and consistency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

This statutory instrument amends provisions within the Education and Inspections Act in relation to new schools. Let me start by acknowledging the one positive aspect of these regulations, which is to make it easier to create new pupil referral units. The previous Conservative Government supported PRUs and expanded provision of alternative education to children who need additional help. In particular, the alternative provision academies achieved better results, according to Ofsted, because they were allowed to innovate and take control of their curriculum.

Unfortunately, this Government have not learned that lesson, either in relation to alternative education or traditional schooling. Regrettably, the focus of the statutory instrument is to crack down further on academies and the freedoms they enjoy.

The Academies Act 2010 allowed more schools to benefit from academy freedoms, to innovate and to improve standards. Those rising standards are one of the proudest achievements of the previous Government. Research by the Education Policy Institute found that pupils attending the early sponsored academies achieved outcomes equivalent to roughly one GCSE grade higher in subjects, compared with similar pupils in predecessor schools.

Academies are now educating millions of children across England, to their benefit. Although no system can guarantee success in every case, academy trusts are strongly represented among the highest-performing school groups in the country. Across the border in Wales, where the Conservative education revolution did not occur, standards have lagged behind. Welsh pupils have been disadvantaged compared with their English counterparts.

Labour’s assault on academies is short-sighted and wrong. It speaks to its need for ever more control. The Conservatives know that giving academies freedom to innovate helps more children to get a decent education. That is why we will oppose the statutory instrument.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

I appreciate that these draft regulations are technical, but they touch on issues that directly impact families in my constituency, particularly those of children with special educational needs. I hope that the Minister will bear with me and be able to clarify a number of issues.

In Guildford and across Surrey, the shortage of specialist state school places has reached an unacceptable level. Parents are telling me repeatedly that there is simply nowhere appropriate for their child to go. Sometimes, children are placed miles from home and are left in settings that are unsuitable. As Surrey county council cannot always meet its statutory duties, it is increasingly reliant on expensive private placements or pupil referral units. Those do great work, but they were never designed to support children with significant and long-term special educational needs.

I see that the regulations expand procedural powers around PRUs. What safeguards will ensure that councils, including Surrey county council, do not end up using the PRUs as a substitute for specialist provision that they are unable or have failed to deliver? PRUs play an important role, but they should not be the default destination for children whose needs are not being met elsewhere.

Another concern I have is that, if the Government are altering how new schools are proposed and approved, where is the guarantee that councils will plan and build the necessary specialist provision? We see this in Guildford and in Surrey. The number of children who need specialist placements but do not have them is unacceptable, and the track record on place planning is not great. Families are left waiting, fighting and appealing, all because state provision just does not exist.

The draft regulations assume a level of competence and capacity in local authorities that, sadly, in my county council is not always borne out by experience, despite some fantastic officers. Could the Minister set out how we will ensure accountability in proper place planning?

Ultimately, my Lib Dem colleagues and I support the SI measures, but I would appreciate if the Minister could explain how the regulations will ensure the provision of high-quality, state-funded specialist support. What assurances can she give to families in my constituency that failures will not continue to be repeated?

I welcome the explanation of the draft regulations, but I wonder if the Minister could provide clarification, because there seems to be a contradiction. The draft regulations remove the legal presumption that new schools should be academies, yet through the Children’s Wellbeing and School Act, the Government intend for all schools to be academies. Why are they encouraging local authorities to open maintained schools if they will then have to go through a governance change in the next couple of years to become an academy? Surely, that is disruptive, time-consuming and potentially unnecessary for the school.

I thank Members for the range of important questions, although I think they are broader than the individual draft regulations we are discussing today.

I will start with the question about special places in specialist schools and how we can ensure that there is consistency. As part of the Government’s reforms to SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—we are proposing the introduction of new specialist provision packages. Those will be developed by a national independent panel and will set out the broad range of provision we expect to be available in every community. Local authorities will have a duty to provide specialist provision packages—that is, the type of special provision that, as the hon. Member for Guildford has set out, is missing from too many communities.

To fund that measure, we are investing £3.7 billion into creating new specialist places. That money is going into the system now, and we are setting very strong expectations on local authorities to deliver new specialist provision both within mainstream schools on an inclusion basis and, where necessary, in new special schools. The policy that forms part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act makes it easier for local authorities to set up new maintained schools.

On the specific question about pupil referral units and their role in the system, we will be very clear in the specialist provision packages about the kind of support we expect for children with internalising and externalising social and emotional needs. As we have set out in the SEND reform consultation, we want the role of alternative provision to be focused on really reintegrating children back into school. The Experts at Hand model we have developed is about using some of the best practice from really high-quality alternative provision to support mainstream schools. The SEND reforms are subject to consultation, but I hope that gives a wider reassurance.

The hon. Member for South Devon asked why we have created these new powers. As she correctly said, we have set out a steer to the system to say that we expect schools to move towards being part of collaborative trusts. The current system means that there are real geographical discrepancies, and sometimes there is not a trust available to set something up quickly, so we want local authorities to have the flexibility to respond quickly to demands and to offer that provision where it is needed.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater raised the wider, more general debate about academisation. I am glad to hear his support for academisation; as he knows, it was something that a Labour Government first introduced. We support that system because we see so many benefits for schools, including collaboration and resilience, from being part of multi-academy trusts. We are setting out a direction to say that is the way in which we expect the school system to move, and we want those freedoms to be available to all schools.

We want to have really strong standards and consistency in critically important areas. We know some of the real challenges that young people face in misinformation and the need for digital literacy in a changing world. Our new national curriculum, on which we have consulted widely with schools, multi-academy trusts and local authority schools, will set the standard we want for all children, and we think it is really important that all schools teach that. It is critical that children have access to a qualified teacher, so we are setting very clear standards through the schools White Paper on not only issues such as inclusion but offering the benefits that come from being part of a multi-academy trust, which is a really sensible approach to developing the new system. The draft regulations are really about implementing policy that has already been debated and discussed.

Question put.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. This statutory instrument was laid before the House on 1 June 2026. I will begin by setting out the background. The instrument concerns machinery, which includes a wide range of workplace and consumer products such as cranes, excavators, leaf blowers and lawn mowers. The current framework for machinery safety is, like many other product regulations, based on EU rules that were assimilated into UK law following our departure from the European Union.

The current EU directive and our UK regulations were first introduced in 2006 and 2008, respectively. Members will appreciate that machinery has adapted and advanced significantly in that time. As such, it is important that we review our legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose and accounts for potential risks from new and emerging technologies, as well as changes in supply chains and how they operate.

I will now explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purpose. It has two functions: first, it ensures that updated EU machinery legislation can be fully enforced in Northern Ireland, as required under the Windsor framework; and secondly, it amends domestic legislation so that machinery that meets the updated EU requirements can continue to be placed on the market in Great Britain.

The SI will introduce mechanisms to allow the EU’s new machinery regulation to be enforced effectively in Northern Ireland. The EU has updated its machinery rules through a new regulation that will apply from 20 January 2027, when it will replace the existing directive. The SI will give full effect to the machinery regulation in Northern Ireland by establishing a robust enforcement framework. It designates enforcement bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and district councils, and makes it an offence to fail to comply with obligations under the regulation.

The instrument also provides for appropriate penalties, including fines and custodial sentences. This ensures that effective enforcement action can be taken where products are non-compliant. I reassure Members that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that the measures will not have a detrimental impact on the criminal justice system. In the vast majority of cases, compliance should be achieved through engagement and support for businesses rather than recourse to criminal sanctions. However, it is essential that penalties are available in serious cases of non-compliance.

The instrument also provides for the continued role of UK-notified bodies in certifying machinery for the Northern Ireland market using the UKNI marking, a conformity marking that must be displayed alongside the CE marking when used for goods placed on the Northern Ireland market.

In Great Britain, the instrument continues CE recognition, allowing businesses to place on the GB market goods that meet certain updated EU requirements, avoiding costly duplicate conformity processes. It achieves that by amending legislation to ensure that machinery that meets the relevant requirements of the EU machinery regulation can still be placed on the GB market. The instrument also includes provisions relating to Northern Ireland qualifying goods, ensuring that products in free circulation in Northern Ireland continue to benefit from unfettered access to the GB market.

The EU’s machinery regulation aims to respond to new technological developments by introducing updated provisions that include clarified responsibilities across the supply chain, including clear importer and distributor obligations; provisions for digital documentation to reduce environmental impacts; and mandatory third-party assessments for certain high-risk products. The Government’s position is that those changes are beneficial, sensible and proportionate, and reflect how the machinery industry has developed since the previous regulations were introduced. As such, the Government will introduce a second SI in due course that will update legislation in Great Britain in line with requirements in Northern Ireland.

The approach we are taking will support economic growth by eliminating costly duplicative processes, reducing unnecessary burdens on businesses, and helping to maintain the UK’s competitiveness with other markets. It will also support commitments in our trade strategy to reset the UK’s relationship and facilitate easier trade with the EU. It will protect the UK internal market and the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while also improving trade with the EU and other partners.

My officials have carried out extensive stakeholder engagement regarding the future of machinery legislation in the UK. We ran a call for evidence last year and gathered verbal feedback through a series of roundtable events held across 10 locations and attended by more than 200 stakeholders. My officials engaged with businesses and trade associations across the UK and in key global markets. Stakeholders were supportive of modernising machinery safety requirements and continuing CE recognition, to reduce costs, support trade and maintain competitiveness.

We received several responses from businesses in Northern Ireland and held two roundtable events in Belfast. There was broad support among stakeholders for the measures being introduced, including those to modernise and strengthen safety requirements. Many Northern Ireland stakeholders also expressed support for continued CE recognition in Great Britain. They told us this would ensure a clear and consistent approach to machinery regulation across the whole of the UK internal market.

As the Committee is aware, we have already announced our approach in respect of introducing measures similar to those in place in the EU and Northern Ireland. Officials have also proactively engaged with the devolved Governments and enforcement authorities throughout the policy development and legislative process to discuss the upcoming changes and ensure they work for all parts of the UK. No significant issues have been raised with my officials, and we continue to engage regularly with stakeholders. It is clear from our engagement that this legislation is in the best interests of both industry and consumers across the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

The Government are taking proactive steps to ensure that industry is well supported in complying with the new requirements. The approach we are taking reflects the feedback we have received from stakeholders and is designed to work in the best interests of business as well as consumers. The changes have been widely viewed as a pragmatic solution to support competitiveness, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and sectors with more limited resources. As machinery is a global sector, many businesses that manufacture and supply machinery have already begun preparing to meet the updated requirements to continue trading with Northern Ireland and the EU. Through our engagement with industry, officials have not identified significant adverse impacts arising from the instrument.

The Government remain fully committed to supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. In the most recent Budget, we announced a £16.6 million UK internal market package to help businesses to adapt to the evolving regulatory landscape. We will also provide clear and timely guidance to give businesses the support they need to comply with the requirements with confidence and certainty. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.

As we heard from the Minister, the instrument makes two principal changes. First, it provides for the enforcement in Northern Ireland of the EU machinery regulation, including in respect of powers for regulators, offences, penalties and mechanisms for co-operation with EU authorities. Secondly, it amends the Great Britain regime by extending the recognition of CE marking beyond January next year.

The Government argue that the changes will avoid a regulatory cliff edge and support trade. Although there are merits to continuity, the instrument also raises several serious concerns. First, there is no impact assessment. The explanatory memorandum focuses narrowly on the cost of enforcement, not the cost of the underlying regulation once enforced. That is a significant omission. It is impossible for the Committee to judge whether the measures will have a material effect on trade, as is required, without understanding the real costs imposed on Northern Ireland businesses.

Secondly, what assessment has the Minister made of the comparative cost burden? Will the measure increase costs for Northern Ireland businesses relative to those in Great Britain, and if so, to what extent? How many businesses are expected to be impacted? Does the Minister believe that the £16.6 million UK internal market package will be sufficient to meet the costs?

Thirdly, the instrument clearly deepens regulatory divergence within the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland will be subject to a new EU regulation, enforced through EU-aligned structures, while Great Britain operates under a different framework. How does the Minister intend firms that trade across both markets, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, to navigate that fragmentation?

Fourthly, the Government suggest that many businesses already align with EU standards. If that is the case, why has there been no full assessment of the administrative burden of operating dual systems?

More fundamentally, the regulations are politically and legally significant. They give practical effect, through enforcement, to legislation made outside the United Kingdom in a legislature in which the people of Northern Ireland are not represented. Whatever one’s views of the wider arrangements, that is not a trivial step and it deserves proper scrutiny.

Finally, the Government indicate that similar measures may in time be introduced in Great Britain. The Minister gave us a timetable, but can she clarify it so that businesses can understand the timetable they are working towards and whether the measures represent a long-term policy of continued reliance on EU standards? The Committee should not be asked to proceed on the basis of incomplete analysis. I hope the Minister can provide clarity on costs, impacts and the Government’s longer-term regulatory direction, because while we await clarity on those matters, we will oppose the regulations.

I am grateful to be called, Ms Jardine. I do not want to detain the Committee too long, but I have some points of clarification for the Minister.

First, will the Minister confirm that the regulations concern the enforcement of machinery standards that flow into Northern Ireland by dint of the Windsor framework without any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever in the UK, and that Northern Ireland will be forced to comply with the regulations without having any say in them whatsoever? On that note, did the UK Government have any beneficial influence over the EU production of the regulations, or will we just get what we are given? The Minister will understand that one doubt about the Windsor framework arrangement with Northern Ireland was the democratic deficit—the fact that we would be rule takers rather than rule makers—and this instrument looks like an example of that, so it would be great if the Minister could confirm that that is the case.

Secondly, will there now be much reverse engineering of wider GB machinery safety regulations to conform with what has been handed down to Northern Ireland? We obviously want to maintain the free flow of goods across the whole of the United Kingdom but, as I read it, in order for that to happen and for the convenience of business, UK businesses as a whole will have to conform to that which has been handed down to Northern Ireland by the EU. If we have had no say in that, it would be helpful to have the Minister’s assessment of whether the regulations are satisfactory for the whole of the United Kingdom or whether they increase the burden. I, too, was disappointed by the lack of any impact assessment in the explanatory memorandum to look into the wider domino effect on the whole of the United Kingdom. I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on that.

Thirdly, unless I have this wrong, it is implicit in the way the structure works that businesses in Northern Ireland will now have to comply with two labelling regimes. They will have the European CE labelling regime and a UKNI labelling regime. That is an added burden, particularly for smaller manufacturing businesses, yet we see no assessment of the impact in the explanatory memorandum. Has the Minister spoken to businesses about what dual labelling will represent? What inconvenience and cost will that put on small businesses?

Finally, as the Minister will know, the regulations include quite draconian penalties. What is the parliamentary accountability for the enforcement regime? We will be enforcing regulations that have been imposed on part of the United Kingdom without any democratic scrutiny. What will be the accountability mechanism for their operation and enforcement? I recognise that much of this comes out of the fact that we exited the European Union in a particular way, but it is, in microcosm, quite an interesting example of some of the conflicts that were highlighted to us during the Brexit process, which some of us attempted to solve.

My overall concern is that this change might be a crack in the door to required general UK alignment with EU regulations, which might not suit us overall and might put us at a disadvantage, not just for our internal market but for a wider market in the world more generally that looks to the British machinery-manufacturing industry with some hope of buying quality goods.

I am deeply concerned that the regulations will further entrench Northern Ireland’s competitive disadvantage in comparison with GB. Why should machinery entering Northern Ireland from the EU be saddled with even more red tape, while GB is free of such regulations? This is about fairness. If a transaction is straightforward in Birmingham or Glasgow, it should be straightforward in Banbridge or Belfast.

Businesses in Upper Bann are constantly expected to navigate complex rules, despite having no meaningful democratic say over them. Our businesses are already weighed down by the bureaucracy of the Windsor framework, which has always been a constitutional compromise. Put simply, it is good for the EU but bad for Northern Ireland. This time last year, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland warned that, shockingly, more than one third of businesses it surveyed had stopped trading with GB altogether. The compliance burdens had already become too great to bear. The new regulations only add insult to injury and cause further problems.

On paper, the statutory instrument is supposed to avoid

“a regulatory cliff edge where products meeting the new EU requirements will not be accepted in GB without the Government changing its machinery legislation.”

In reality, the new measures may force GB suppliers to conclude that serving Northern Ireland is just too much hassle. In truth, the paperwork is not worth the profit. Machinery dealers, manufacturers and contractors depend on GB supply chains.

Just a number of weeks ago, an article was written after the Balmoral show, the largest agricultural show in Northern Ireland, in which the company Grassmen highlighted just how disastrous the situation is, including the company’s problems bringing from GB to Northern Ireland a tractor that had been at another show. It is absolutely ludicrous and causes major problems for our businesses.

The new rules will cause more delay, more cost and more uncertainty. Competitiveness is being undermined and businesses are struggling to get the equipment they need. The issue is bigger than machinery: this is about sovereignty, democracy and economic common sense. Companies in Northern Ireland should be focused on growing their businesses, not fighting their way through an ever-expanding maze of red tape.

A few points in the explanatory memorandum are quite telling, including paragraph 5.3, which says:

“This SI applies to both workplace machinery and consumer products, including excavators, cranes, and leaf blowers.”

That lays bare the scope and extent of the SI, which will now impact not only workplace machinery but consumer products, even though we were always told that consumer products would be protected.

Paragraph 5.7 says:

“The Government has also announced that similar measures to those taking effect in Northern Ireland will be introduced in Great Britain as soon as parliamentary time allows.”

When will that be? We have absolutely no idea. Meanwhile, the GB-Northern Ireland mismatch will continue. Given that the Minister used the words “in due course”, there certainly does not seem to be any Government push to move on with the measures, which are not right in the first place. That shows the disdain for Northern Ireland and the impact of the regulations on us.

The last sentence of paragraph 5.9 of the explanatory memorandum says:

“Under the Windsor Framework, the EU Regulation will apply directly to NI”,

which again highlights that Northern Ireland is put at a disadvantage under the Windsor framework. The memorandum also talks about how the instrument will improve the “cliff edge” situation, but actually it only piles on more regulations, so it does not do what the Government claim. The SI is bad for business in Northern Ireland, so I ask the Government to engage with the businesses that are impacted by the situation, and to start to make the change that is needed by getting rid of the Windsor framework and putting Northern Ireland on a par with GB.

This piece of legislation may seem innocuous, but it is yet another example of the wedges being driven between one part of the United Kingdom and another part of the United Kingdom—wedges not just in regulations, but in their practical effect.

First, leaving aside the constitutional impact of the legislation, let us just look at the explanatory memorandum, which tells us:

“This SI amends the 2008 Regulations, clarifying that their territorial extent is limited to GB”.

Why? To allow

“EU Regulation to function effectively in NI.”

That is the purpose of this legislation. It removes Northern Ireland from what was UK-wide regulation, which will now be limited only to part of the United Kingdom, to facilitate the functioning of EU regulations in Northern Ireland.

Those EU regulations will not have been debated in a Committee like this, nor will they have been discussed with Northern Ireland representatives. There will not even have been consultation with Northern Ireland when the regulations were being formed, as we cannot in any way feed into regulations that apply to the single market even though we remain a part of it. Leaving aside the practical effect of the instrument, that is the first important point that we all ought to note. Regardless of our views on Brexit or the EU, as UK parliamentarians, we ought to ask ourselves whether we should accept and vote for this kind of legislation

Secondly, it disturbs me that the Government, as the explanatory memorandum makes quite clear, are going down this route and implementing the legislation because:

“Failure to do so would create regulatory uncertainty in NI and risk undermining the UK’s relationship with the EU.”

Once again, Northern Ireland appears to be being sacrificed on the altar of the great reset that the Government wish to have with the EU. They are saying, “Let’s not disturb them. Let’s not challenge them on any aspect of the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor framework. Even though there should apparently be a mechanism for raising concerns, let’s not raise them, because we might upset those relationships.”

Thirdly, the Minister has said that the regulations will not have any detrimental impact, yet the explanatory notes make it clear that no impact assessment has been done, because, as this comes under the Windsor framework and the protocol, doing so would be outside the scope of the Government. Even when we introduce regulations here, the arrangements we have with the EU mean that we cannot do an impact assessment. Such an assessment could have an impact in lots of different ways. For a start, we do not know the costs of the machinery safety regulations for businesses. All we are told is that, regardless of the costs, we now have a piece of legislation that indicates that we will enforce that legislation, and we will enforce it with very high penalties.

I know the right hon. Gentleman is passionate about this subject, but can he be clear about his concerns about the detail of the regulations and what difference they will actually make to businesses? People are speaking in very general terms, but can he be specific about the detail of the legislation and what difference it will actually make? What would the right hon. Gentleman have the Government negotiate, if they could?

The standards applied to machinery made in Northern Ireland will be different from those applied in other parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member asks about the detail, but very often we do not know the cost until we actually have to apply the different standards. For example, in Northern Ireland we export a lot of agricultural machinery, and if the standards imposed by the EU require more work, more materials and more safety devices than those applied in the rest of the United Kingdom, there will be a cost.

We do not know until we actually see the standards applied and compare them with the rest of the United Kingdom. Because we export a lot of that machinery to GB, businesses could be at a competitive disadvantage due to the cost of enforcement. There is also the cost on councils.

To be honest, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West makes a good point. Presumably, he will vote in favour of enforcing the underlying regulations, but none of us know whether they are any good. In fact, we have had no say over whether they are any good—we just have to take them as handed down.

I asked the Minister earlier whether the UK, knowing that we have to accept them, whether we like it or not, has had any influence on trying to ensure that they actually do what they are supposed to do. To a certain extent, both sides of the House are blindly voting on the regulations, because we have had no hand in putting them together.

Not only have we not had a hand in putting them together, but we have not even done an impact assessment, and we have not done an impact assessment because that is out of scope, as this is part of the Windsor framework. Of course, there is also the cost on local councils in Northern Ireland of implementing the regulations. I do not know what that will be, and I suspect that none of the councils have even been consulted on what additional staff will be required or what costs it will impose on them.

When we pass a piece of legislation, we should at least ask these questions. First, does it make one part of the United Kingdom different from another? It does, and the explanatory notes show that that is the case. Secondly, is it necessary? Given that the only necessity highlighted in the explanatory note is that we do not want to upset relations with the EU, I am not so sure that that is a justifiable reason for passing the legislation. Lastly, if we are passing legislation, surely we should know what impact it will have, and we do not know what impact this will have. For all those reasons I say to Members that before we carelessly vote in favour of this change, let us at least consider those points.

The regulations are the latest example of the humiliation of this proclaimed sovereign United Kingdom Parliament in adopting laws that it did not make and laws it cannot change—laws that are made in a foreign jurisdiction. We have already seen that in multiple examples. We have had it in the vehicle type regulations, under which people cannot now buy a new car in Northern Ireland made to GB-type regulations and must buy one made to EU-type regulations at an extra expense of £4,000; we have had it with tumble dryers—there are certain types of tumble dryers that can no longer be bought in Northern Ireland; and now we are to have it in respect of machinery. Who would have thought that the EU single market was so fragile that the composition of a leaf blower coming into Northern Ireland placed it in jeopardy? It really is ridiculous beyond belief.

The fundamental constitutional and democratic point is that in this Committee this afternoon, parliamentarians are being invited to nod through laws that they did not make, did not write and cannot change to enforce the EU regulation that is coming in in January, and to enforce it in a part of this United Kingdom in respect of which this is supposed to be the sovereign Parliament. What an insult to all of us as parliamentarians to belong to a proclaimed sovereign Parliament to have to pass laws that we did not make and cannot change. That is the very essence of what is before us.

The Government, as has already been referred to, have said it themselves. In order to produce their reset, they are going to bring in a statutory instrument to make the whole of the United Kingdom compliant with EU laws. Not satisfied with subjecting my part of the United Kingdom to a foreign jurisdiction making laws that we cannot change, they are now going to set the whole United Kingdom under identical laws made in a foreign place. I really do think it is time that we, as parliamentarians, woke up to what we are being asked to do.

I have one practical question for the Minister. Under the regulations, Northern Ireland’s goods will have to bear the European CE marking and the UKNI marking, and then they will be able to be sold into Great Britain. What about machinery made in Great Britain? How can it be sold into Northern Ireland? It will not bear the CE marking. Will it bear the UKNI marking? Have we created a situation in which we are going to cut the pipeline of supply from GB to Northern Ireland? I really would like the Minister to address this question: what is the effect of the regulations on the sale of machinery made in Great Britain to another part of the United Kingdom? I would like a very clear answer on that because, in significant measure, it goes to the heart of the matter. Please, Minister, answer that question.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations and their contributions to the debate. They raised a significant number of issues that I will pick up on in my response.

First, on our product regulation legislation, since getting into Government we have legislated for the flexibility to ensure that product regulation, now and in future, is tailored to the needs of the UK. There will be some instances where we will take our own approach and some instances where we will want to take a similar approach to the EU. However, we have done that, and will continue to do that, on a case-by-case basis, where it is absolutely in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers and in our national interests.

The arrangements under the Windsor framework are a settled and important part of UK law, agreed by Parliament to protect the UK internal market. We have made the sovereign decision that is right for the whole of the UK to improve safety and modernise in particular machinery legislation, which we are discussing today, to reduce duplicative and costly burdens on businesses and ensure that there is no friction with the UK internal market. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, our approach is supported by the overwhelming majority of stakeholders.

This SI does not implement EU law in Great Britain; it does, however, continue CE recognition in Great Britain so that products that meet the new EU requirements can be placed on the GB market. That is not a new concept, but the continuation of current Government policy and the policy of prior Governments. The UK and the EU are strategic partners, and it is in our mutual interest to maintain trade flows and avoid trade friction, while responding to emerging technologies and maintaining a commitment to product safety and consumer protection. Mutual transparency and regular discussions are an indispensable part of that.

Informed by our engagement with industry, the Government have reviewed the changes introduced by the machinery regulation, and we believe that they are sensible and proportionate and will ensure that safer products are available to consumers and businesses alike. That is why we are continuing CE recognition and seeking to introduce similar measures in GB. As I have said before, we are prepared to align with EU regulation, but we will take a pragmatic, case-by-case approach, doing it where it clearly advances the national interests, supports long-term growth, promotes consumer interests, attracts investment and supports jobs. Where that is not the case, we will take a different approach to deliver the best outcomes for businesses and consumers in the UK.

At the centre of any long-term plans for the alignment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we will maintain the integrity of the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s rightful place within it. My officials engage with the Northern Ireland Government and enforcement authorities on a regular basis to discuss any issues or concerns they might have, and that close relationship will remain ongoing. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire mentioned Northern Ireland businesses and dual labelling, and I thank him for raising that. The answer is no: they can continue to CE mark only, and UKNI marking is optional if the conformity assessment is in the UK.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, and a number of Members on the Opposition Benches, mentioned the impact assessment for this SI. As she knows, a de minimis assessment has been prepared for the provisions of this instrument relating to continuing CE recognition in Great Britain. These measures are considered to have a low impact per business from their introduction, and that is additionally the case for the Northern Ireland aspects of this instrument. The measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope of the assessment. The Windsor framework is already given effect in legislation through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement Act) 2020, which adds provisions and powers to the 2018 Act.

I am finding it hard to understand how the Minister can claim that there will be no impact on businesses in Northern Ireland. To give a practical example, many production lines nowadays have built-in AI safety monitoring systems. At the moment, companies in manufacturing have to certify that AI against a national standard, and they can self-certify. As I understand it, the EU regulations around AI and cyber-security would mean moving to a notified body certification system. If I had a production line, I would have to go out and find a recognised body to come in and independently certify the software behind the safety system in my manufacturing line as compliant. That has to be an extra cost—how can going from self-certification to external certification by an outside body not have a significant impact? As far as I can see, these regulations are riddled with those kinds of changes, which must impose a significant cumulative burden.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises AI and cyber-security as part of our considerations. That is why it is so important that we keep up to date with technological developments and the impact on machinery. The EU’s machinery regulations, as he says, include provisions on software and AI to ensure that those new technologies do not affect the safe functioning of machinery. We are also working with the EU to ensure that the changes in Northern Ireland are compatible with wider product safety and regulatory reforms, including cross-cutting legislation on AI and cyber-security.

Overall, we expect the instrument to benefit Northern Ireland. We have extensively engaged with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and SMEs in particular have indicated that it significantly helps in terms of resources—that is from our direct engagement with those businesses and the feedback we have received. It is a key consideration for businesses that they will be able to continue to benefit from dual access to both EU and UK markets. As we work towards introducing similar measures in Great Britain, continuing CE recognition and ensuring that the same machinery products can be placed on the market across the whole of the UK without unnecessary duplication of testing and administrative process will be absolutely vital.

The shadow Minister asked about the numbers of businesses involved. We estimate that around 230 businesses in Northern Ireland and 5,380 in Great Britain are in scope of the machinery legislation. She also referenced the £16.6 million of funding that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Funding was allocated in the Budget to deliver an enhanced “one-stop shop” advice service for small businesses beyond what is available on gov.uk, along with the new funding for Intertrade UK, and that commitment will be delivered in the course of the next financial year. The project has moved into a phase of more active engagement, with robust interest from stakeholders. Formal co-design workshops are ongoing to refine the service specification and ensure that the delivery model meets business needs.

I have briefly touched on the implementation of similar measures in Great Britain. My officials have already begun actively developing a further SI to modernise GB machinery regulation, which will ensure that the UK framework remains proportionate and aligned with the technological developments raised numerous times throughout this debate. Announcements about implementing similar measures have already been made, to provide businesses with the certainty that the shadow Minister also asked about.

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referenced enforcement and parliamentary scrutiny. The day-to-day enforcement of product safety legislation is largely local. For machinery in Northern Ireland, it would generally be undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland or by district councils, for workplace and consumer products respectively. However, the Secretary of State has enforcement powers under legislation, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards has an active enforcement role on behalf of the Secretary of State, particularly where issues are nationally significant, complex, novel, high risk or large scale. For example, the OPSS can intervene where a product risk affects consumers nationally or where co-ordinated enforcement action is needed across multiple agencies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that enforcement will remain as it is under the current regime and that nothing will change; I hope that reassures him and answers his question.

When it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of CE recognition under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, we have consulted with stakeholders, and Northern Ireland provisions are done as part of the Windsor framework, which I touched on right at the start of my remarks. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the parliamentary process uses the affirmative procedure.

To conclude, we are using the PRAM Act powers, as I have mentioned, for CE recognition, which requires consultation with stakeholders. UKNI marking will only be used by a UK notified body; otherwise, it will be a CE mark only. We have heard that from businesses in Northern Ireland through that stakeholder engagement, and that is what they have told us.

As explained previously, this draft instrument ensures the effective enforcement of the EU machinery regulation in Northern Ireland. It maintains access to the GB market for compliant products and supports high safety standards while minimising unnecessary burdens on business. This draft instrument also ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am pleased to commend this draft instrument to the Committee.

Will the Minister address my question about what impact, if any, there is on GB-Northern Ireland sales?

I am terribly sorry, but the Minister had already sat down.

Question put.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the Committee for considering this instrument today. Wireless connectivity underpins a vast range of everyday services, from mobile phones and wi-fi to broadcasting and satellite communications. All of those rely on access to radio spectrum, the invisible frequencies that carry wireless signals.

Spectrum is a finite and valuable resource. It must be carefully managed to ensure that different services can operate without interference, that networks function reliably and that consumers and businesses benefit from competition and innovation. In the UK that is the responsibility of Ofcom, the independent communications regulator, which manages spectrum by issuing licences, setting conditions and promoting efficient use. The Government set the overall policy and strategic priorities, including through the statement of strategic priorities.

Sorry if this is slightly parochial: I welcome the release of spectrum, but what guidance will be given to Ofcom to help with the roll-out in semi-rural areas such as Biggin Hill in my constituency?

I will conclude my remarks and perhaps pick up that question in my closing speech, which I am looking forward to making.

Maintaining a clear and effective framework for managing spectrum is therefore an important part of supporting investment in digital infrastructure and the wider economy. The instrument contributes to that by improving legal clarity without changing existing services, business models or regulatory requirements.

The draft order revokes a direction given to Ofcom in 2010. At the time, the Government used the direction to ensure that a specific set of reforms to support the roll-out of mobile broadband were implemented clearly and at pace alongside Ofcom’s existing statutory framework, and in line with wider European measures to harmonise the use of key spectrum bands. Those measures included allowing operators greater flexibility in how they could use key spectrum bands, enabling spectrum licences to be bought and sold, updating licence conditions to support long-term investment and preparing for major spectrum auctions.

Together, those changes helped operators to transition from older mobile technologies towards newer ones, enabling the roll-out of 3G and 4G services more quickly and efficiently, and supporting the widespread availability of modern mobile services across the UK. The reforms were also reflected in wider European measures to harmonise the use of key mobile spectrum bands and support the transition to newer technologies. They played a significant role in enabling the roll-out of modern mobile networks in the UK and in promoting investment and competition in the sector.

All the obligations set out in the direction have now been fully implemented by Ofcom through a series of regulatory actions over the past decade. As a result, the direction no longer has any practical effect and is now redundant. The instrument therefore revokes that direction, improving the clarity of the legal framework and removing the risk of confusion that could arise from retaining obsolete provisions. For example, when Ofcom looks to set annual licence fees for mobile spectrum, we want to minimise the risk of unnecessary legal challenge.

The instrument does not introduce any new policy or change the way spectrum is managed in the UK. Ofcom will continue to exercise its functions under the existing statutory framework, including the duties set out in the Communications Act 2003 and the powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. They provide the framework for managing spectrum efficiently, promoting competition and investment, and protecting consumers. That step helps to ensure that the framework underpinning wireless connectivity remains clear and effective, supporting continued investment, innovation and reliable services for consumers and businesses. I hope the Committee will support this instrument.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. This statutory instrument revokes an obsolete SI, and we of course support clearing up and removing obsolete instruments. I wish the Government could do more of that in terms of regulation, and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide a list of the SIs that he plans to revoke, amend or remove over the course of the next year.

Many people receive internet coverage through 4G and 3G. He will no doubt be aware that there have recently been quite a few cancellations under Project Gigabit. Can he tell us how many homes will now no longer receive gigabit broadband connections that were expecting to this year?

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats of course support this instrument; Ofcom has fulfilled its duties under the original direction and the legislative housekeeping is sensible. However, the Minister talks about modern mobile services, innovation and investment, and in light of that it is right to use this opportunity to highlight that for millions of people across the UK, high-speed mobile broadband and mobile services remain a distant promise rather than a daily reality.

In my own constituency, just 20 minutes from London, constituents regularly write to me about patchy or non-existent mobile coverage. That is not just a problem of rural remoteness; there are people living on streets where their neighbour has full signal and they have none. Michael from Gaddesden Row, for example, has no 4G signal and very slow wi-fi, while his neighbours just down the street have double his speed of connection.

I have also heard from many constituents who cannot reliably pay for parking on their own high streets because the connectivity is simply not there. We are happy to support the removal of a direction that has served its purpose, but can the Minister tell me when constituents across the country will genuinely be able to access the high-speed mobile broadband infrastructure that this legislation was supposed to help to deliver?

On the first and third questions asked regarding this measure, consumers should not expect an immediate or visible change as a result of the instrument, but the Government will work closely with Ofcom to ensure that mobile coverage is improved through other policy measures. If the shadow Minister will forgive me, on the substantive numbers of gigabit availability—

The cancelled gigabit availability.

Yes, sorry—I will write to him. I am grateful for the support across the House on the draft instrument. The direction it revokes has already been fully implemented in terms of obtaining—

Will the Minister give way?

I will not.

The direction being revoked serves no practical purpose. This SI is therefore a simple but important step to ensure that the statute book reflects the current position by removing provisions that are no longer needed. In doing so, it supports a clear and coherent framework for spectrum management, giving certainty to regulators and industry alike. It helps to maintain the conditions for continued investment, innovation and reliable connectivity across the economy. I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The regulations were laid before the House on 1 June and, following a minor correction, re-laid on 8 June.

In considering this instrument today we are not debating the principle of modernising planning committees. The enabling powers for these regulations are contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses and approved by them. Before I turn to the detail of the regulations, it is important to set out the extensive consultation and engagement that we have undertaken on these measures.

As Committee members may recall, the commitment to improve local planning decision making by modernising planning committees was made in the King’s Speech 2024. Following that announcement, we published a planning reform working paper on planning committees that set out a range of proposals, including three options in respect of a national scheme of delegation designed to bring greater standardisation over the operation of committees and give greater certainty to applicants. Taking into account the valuable feedback we received to that working paper, three measures were introduced to the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The first gives a new power to the Secretary of State to set out which planning functions should be delegated to planning officers for a decision, and which should instead go to a planning committee or sub-committee. The second gives a new power to the Secretary of State to control the size and composition of planning committees. The third imposes a new requirement for members of planning committees to be trained and certified in key elements of planning law and policy.

During the course of the Act’s progress, we undertook a public consultation on detailed proposals in respect of the three measures. Our response to that consultation committed the Government to introduce, through regulations, a two-tier national scheme of delegation to set a maximum cap for planning committees of 13 members, and to undertake further stakeholder engagement with a view to designing a creditable and cost-effective system for training committee members.

As required by the Act, a further statutory consultation on the draft regulations for the national scheme of delegation and cap on committee size and associated guidance was undertaken earlier this year. The Government response confirmed that some changes would be made to the regulations as a result of feedback received, including imposing a size threshold in relation to reserved matters applications, which would determine whether they are in schedule 1 or 2. The result is the draft regulations before us. It is the Government’s considered view that they are integral to driving up rates of house building, and that they will improve, not undermine, the vital role played by planning committees.

As I was at pains to stress throughout the passage of the Act, the Government recognise the essential role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. However, in providing essential local democratic oversight of planning decisions, we are determined to ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on larger and more complex applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.

I reiterate that these regulations do not alter in any way existing requirements to consult on planning applications, the right of residents and elected councillors in any given local planning authority area to submit representations and make objections in respect of planning applications, or the fact that any such comments must be taken into consideration when determining applications, regardless of the decision maker. They are instead designed to ensure that planning committees function effectively, and that they are focused on the development proposals that matter most to an area, rather than spending time on minor or technical applications that can be efficiently determined by expert planning officers, bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications.

The principle of schemes of delegation is, of course, uncontested. At present, every local planning authority has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by planning committees rather than delegated to officers. Most local planning authorities already delegate a significant proportion of applications to such officers, such that 96% of planning decisions in England are already not made by planning committees. The problem is that there is significant variation across the country, and this creates risk and uncertainty in the system. For those reasons, we are introducing the national scheme of delegation. It will provide greater consistency and certainty across England about who in a local planning authority will be responsible for making planning decisions.

Let me briefly explain how the national scheme of delegation will work. It categorises planning applications into two types: those that must always be delegated to planning officers, as set out in schedule 1; and those that may, subject to a gateway test, be referred to a planning committee, as set out in schedule 2. The types of applications that must be determined by an officer include applications for minor residential development, that is schemes of fewer than 10 dwellings; minor commercial development; householder development; and reserved matters applications from proposals where the outline planning permission is for fewer than 500 dwellings. The types of application that fall into schedule 2 include larger applications for planning permission not set out in schedule 1, reserved matters applications where the outline permission is for more than 500 dwellings, and listed building consent applications.

We anticipate that, in many circumstances, schedule 2 applications will continue to be routinely delegated to officers, as is already the case across the country. However, councils can decide to take them to committee if they feel it would be appropriate. To do so, the application must meet the requirements of the gateway test. It will be the responsibility of a nominated officer, usually the chief planner or equivalent, and a nominated member, usually the chair of the committee, to determine whether an application meets those criteria.

The gateway test will operate as follows. Applications will be determined by a planning officer unless the nominated officer and member agree that it meets at least one of the following criteria: where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance for the local area; or where it raises a significant planning matter, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations.

We recognise that for applications involving a local authority itself, or an officer or member of that authority, there may sometimes be cases where, in the interests of transparency, committee scrutiny is merited. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they would fall into schedules 1 or 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria.

To support local planning authorities in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and to ensure a consistent approach, we have published statutory guidance that they must have regard to. We have also asked the planning advisory service to provide support and training to both the officers and the members of local planning authorities in implementing the new approach to the operation of the delegation of decision making. As I mentioned, we are also placing a cap on the number of members who can sit on a planning committee. That is intended to allow committees to have more focused and higher quality debates. The cap has been set at 13 members, to accommodate those local planning authorities that have members from multiple political parties to ensure appropriate representation.

To conclude, planning is and will remain principally a local activity because decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. That is why the Government are determined to ensure that every area has an up-to-date local plan developed through resident engagement, and it is why we remain firmly of the view that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. It is, however, vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions.

As I made clear at the outset of my remarks, we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement on these measures. We published an initial working paper. We held two rounds of public consultation and various roundtables and events, including with local authority officers, chairs of planning committees, house builders and sector bodies. Some of those events were led by the planning advisory service on behalf of the Department. We have listened and given careful consideration to the wide range of views expressed by those who have an interest in the matter. Those views and existing best practice across the country have informed the regulations. I hope that hon. Members agree that the changes we seek to make are a reasonable and proportionate means of improving the quality and speed of decision making in local planning authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Sir Desmond. I welcome the opportunity to address the statutory instrument on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and I thank the Minister for his detailed opening remarks. At the outset I state that it is our intention to divide the Committee on the SI. Notwithstanding that, I am aware of the political balance of the Committee and the Government are likely to carry the day, so I have some comments and questions for the Minister.

As I said in a Delegated Legislation Committee two weeks ago,

“The Planning and Infrastructure Act was a mammoth undertaking”—[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 17 June 2026; c. 4.].

It is therefore no surprise to be back again debating regulations relating to the Act. In that Committee I raised some of the Opposition’s important and long-held concerns about local democracy. This SI may be about the planning system on paper, but the core of the changes it seeks to make strike at the heart of future local democratic voices and their ability to scrutinise planning applications.

As I did two weeks ago, I am keen to make plain once again the Opposition’s firm view that we must get Britain building. There is broad consensus among the Government and the Opposition that this must happen, albeit with differences as to how it should happen. Still, that is better than the purely nimby sentiments expressed by some minor opposition parties.

Where the Government and the Opposition most notably differ is over the issue of local democratic oversight and scrutiny, and the uncertain future of planning committees. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, just 4% of all planning applications are decided by a planning committee rather than by a planning officer. However, it is that 4% in which local voices—democratically elected local voices—are so critical. That is because at present, local councillors can call in planning applications for democratic determination, but the Government seem determined to remove that ability by mandating which applications must go to committee and which cannot.

Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed the Government’s intention? If so, how does he plan to ensure that planning officers are held to account under a national scheme of delegation? I know this is not the first time the Opposition have put this question to the Government, but it is of too great an importance not to be considered at every stage of this march towards a national scheme of delegation.

Secondly, any attempt to suggest that the 4% represents either a great blockage or an insignificant hill on which to plant one’s flag is very far from the truth. In the period from January to March, 91% of major planning applications were decided within 13 weeks of the agreed time, up from 89% towards the end of 2024. That is the same system that delivered consent for 1 million homes in England between 2019 and 2024, and 2.5 million between 2010 and 2024. Given that 96% of all applications are already decided outside planning committees, and given the high number of planning permissions granted, why is curtailing democratic participation necessary?

Removing local councillors’ ability to have their say is one thing, but doing so in exchange for a national scheme of delegation written and imposed top-down from Whitehall is a further insult to the town hall. I ask the Minister: how will the Government ensure that the scheme includes the same local knowledge and understanding that local, democratically elected councillors provide at present? That is a concern not just on the Opposition Benches but for the Local Government Association, which, during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, said:

“there remain concerns around how it”—

“it” meaning the national scheme of delegation—

“will ensure that councils—who know their areas best and what they need—remain at the heart of the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.”

As local authorities are being asked to deliver increases in new homes of up to 487%, what assessment has the Minister made of the loss of local knowledge and local democratic input to planning applications? As I said at the outset, we agree that there is a need to build more homes, but why do local people need to be taken out of the equation by removing their democratically elected representatives from the process?

There is also the question of transparency. How will the Government ensure that decisions taken by unelected officials are taken with sufficient probity? Then there is the question of applications made by local councillors themselves. For the sake of probity, it is usual for those to be heard by the full planning committee. Will that continue to be the case? What safeguards will be in place in the event that the council has a direct interest in an application—for example, where the application is made by the council itself or where it has a financial interest in it, perhaps by virtue of a loan to the developer?

Finally, between the removal of locally elected voices and the introduction of overarching and subsuming spatial development strategies, what role will local plans, which are decided by elected councillors, play after all of this? I hope that the Minister will carefully consider each of those points and address them fully as we continue this debate.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I would like to make a couple of additional points, adding to the really important comments made by the Minister about why these changes are important. It is worth dwelling on the fact that housing in this country is prohibitively expensive for too many people. That is the reason why people are increasingly having to wait so long to get on the housing ladder.

Fundamentally, housing is too expensive because, first, there is not enough of it and, secondly, increasingly it is too expensive to build new housing units. If we want to bring the cost of housing down, we have to address those two problems. We have to increase the number of new homes that are built, but also decrease the cost of building them. On the latter, increasing global pressures, from supply chain disruptions to the impact of geopolitical events, are pushing up construction and labour costs. Most of those headwinds are outside our control, but when we have difficult headwinds it is even more important that we do everything we can with the levers that are within our control to bring down the cost of construction.

I mention that because one of the most damaging, self-inflicted and unnecessary costs in our current house building system is uncertainty. Right now, there could be companies out there—including developers, housing associations or, as the shadow Minister said, local councils—that are looking to build new homes. They could be doing everything right; they could be putting the land together and coming up with a plan that builds the right amount of affordable housing, gives local planning gains and supports local infrastructure. After putting all that investment and support in, coming up with a plan and designing a project, they could still face the daunting prospect of having that development blocked at the eleventh hour by the whims of a small number of local councillors, who are often responding completely rationally to local political incentives.

Obviously, those trade-offs exists. That uncertainty comes at a cost: we either add to the price of a house that constituents are paying for, or we decrease the amount of planning gain that we can make from the developers. By definition, it either means higher housing costs or it means fewer GP surgeries, less road infrastructure or fewer affordable homes being built. That is the cost of having more uncertainty in the system. It is right that we reduce that uncertainty; one way to do that is by having decisions made by officers who are following planning laws, rather than by people who are responding to political incentives.

There is a strong corelation between the hon. Gentleman’s argument and our position. I agree with much of what he has said, but I cannot get away from the ratio that both the Minister and I have outlined in our speeches: 96% of planning applications are already decided by officers under delegated powers. Is the hon. Gentleman’s position that democracy is the inhibitor here? Is democracy introducing uncertainty into the system? If that is the case, he should say so.

I do not believe that democracy is changing it. It is fundamentally the incentives of certain local politicians to do this when they can have a veto power over a development that has a wider gain, often outside their local constituencies. That is a wider consequence. I am democratically elected, as is the shadow Minister, so in this sovereign Parliament we have the ability and right to set the rules under which that democracy operates.

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he not agree that that is the reason for the existence of the Planning Inspectorate? If planning applications are refused for reasons that are not in accordance with planning policy, will they not be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate?

I thank the shadow Minister for making that point because it was the last point I was going to briefly make before wrapping up. This is the key point: it adds not only uncertainty, but delays. If uncertainty has costs in the housing system, the developers might go to the Planning Inspectorate, but that adds extra delay and costs.

Most of the developments in schedule 1 are very small—often up to just 10 properties. The margins that a developer would make on that project are much smaller than the costs of that delay and of having to go to the Planning Inspectorate in the first place. That means that most developments across the country have effectively stopped construction altogether. The big consequence of that is that SME builders, particularly those in local communities who have generally been building smaller sized developments, are going under. One of the only ways to fix that is by bringing certainty back into the system, given that uncertainty is one of the reasons why they have been facing challenges.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have taken up too much time; people really want to get off.

We all accept that we should be focusing on smaller sites because, as the Minister set out, the bigger sites should be decided and focused on by the planning committees. This measure will free up more of their time to focus on those bigger sites and issues. However, schedule 1 sets the size of small sites at nine properties or fewer, which I think is at the lower end of people’s expectations. I appreciate that the Minister has done lots of consultation work on the draft regulations, but given that just 69% of the properties built each year would fall into that category, can he please give us some information on how he has settled on that number? Will he consider raising that number in future, if he is convinced that it would lead to more benefit and more good-quality homes being constructed?

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The only certainty that consigning applications to officers will bring is a greater certainty of refusal. Officers refuse a greater proportion of planning applications than planning committees, which is not an argument in favour of the draft regulations.

To prove that point, the hon. Gentleman would need to prove that the types of applications currently going to either officers or planning committees are effectively random, but they are not. We know that different types of applications go to each one, so we cannot make that comparison between the two numbers.

I will give two examples that have a bearing on the hon. Gentleman’s point momentarily.

The Liberal Democrats have supported elements of the Government’s reforms. We supported the housing measures in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and we support the principle of strategic planning. We also have no objection to a standard scheme of delegation or an upper limit on the size of planning committees. However, we do not accept that decisions must—the word “must” is used several times in the draft regulations—be taken away from elected councillors such that councils will approve decisions in cases where every single councillor disagrees, and the council’s name will still be on that decision. How can that be just? How can that be right?

The delivery of new homes is important. In particular, our target for social homes is higher than the Government’s, as we would aspire to deliver 150,000 per year, and we would allocate funding in that direction. Many of the measures that the Government are bringing forward seem to be directed at increasing planning permissions, largely for private sector housing, which many people in my constituency cannot and will not be able to afford. There is also little evidence that increasing planning permissions will reduce house prices—in fact, that has never happened, and it never will. Of course, house builders work on a commercial model in which they need to sustain their price to make their profit, which is an entirely reasonably approach.

Recent other changes also seem to be bearing in this direction. Councillors have already been removed from making a free decision on developments for over 150 homes; they cannot refuse them unless they first go cap in hand to the Minister and ask whether that is okay. Under that recently introduced direction, they lost their ability to decide on applications over 150 homes, and under the draft regulations, they will also lose their ability to decide on smaller applications. Guidance on the draft regulations would be a good thing, but this is not about guidance—the key word is “must”. The Minister referred to democratic oversight, but that will be removed unless the draft regulations are defeated. There is absolutely no question of any democratic oversight in any of these decisions.

Two examples came to my mind. One does not have to spend a lot of time as a member of a planning committee to come across applications where officers recommend a cautious refusal, but members of the committee then overturn that decision. I dealt with one in Wiltshire many years ago where an owner wanted to divide a large house into two by blocking up two doorways. The planning officer and the senior planning officer were adamant that this would create a new dwelling in the open countryside and so must be refused, and they would listen to no other representations. With the support of local councillors, it was taken to the planning committee and the planning committee unanimously approved the application to create an additional dwelling and increase the housing supply.

When I spoke to the chair of my local planning committee in Somerset recently, I heard about a similar example just outside my constituency where officers were recommending a refusal, but members overturned that decision and the housing was granted. That will not be possible under the draft regulations, and applicants will have nowhere to go. Whether they are local residents or local builders, they will not be able to do anything. They will be allowed to contact their councillors, but their councillors will turn around and say, “Even though I’ve been elected as a councillor, I cannot have any say or effect over this council decision. It has been taken away from me by the regulations.”

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have previously been a local councillor, so I understand the importance of planning committees and of local democracy around planning decisions, but I find the idea that local councillors will have no ability to have any say or influence over officers’ delegated decisions a bit ludicrous. If a councillor is doing their job properly, they are constantly going to the planning department to speak to officers about various issues that are raised with them. It will be more than possible for councillors to speak to planning officers, knowing that they are to make a decision on something like this, to give them whatever local context they feel they would need to come to an informed decision. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with that?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the importance of close working between councillors and officers, and I do not deny it, but the planning committees and the national scheme of delegation consultation outcome document is crystal clear, and I am grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to quote it. It says in paragraph 17:

“Nominated officers and nominated members should make every effort to reach agreement on which cases should be referred to committee.”

Of course, that is only in schedule 2 applications; in schedule 1 applications, there is no opportunity for councillors to have a word with the officers and have the application referred to committee, but in schedule 2 applications there would be. The consultation outcome document goes on to state:

“However, where agreement is not possible, the case must be delegated to officers under regulation 5(3).”

The questions raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington, about whether officers will be required to prepare the same registers of interest and to be subject to the same degree of openness and accountability that councillors have to have are well put.

In our view, the draft regulations dangerously undermine democratic accountability—in fact, they remove it altogether—and leave the way open for those who will say, “It doesn’t matter how you vote or what you think—it has no effect.” The regulations will extend that principle to councillors and their powers: it does not matter what they think or what they say; they will not be allowed to affect decisions that are taken in their name and the name of their council. We will be pressing the regulations to a Division if the Opposition do not. Every councillor will regret these changes.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. This is a hugely consequential instrument. Little democracy remains in our planning system, and this legislation will cut the amount down further. We are elected to this place to serve the public, not treat them as a problem to be silenced.

The measures will mean that individual councillors lose the ability to directly call in planning decisions completely, and that democratically elected councillors get to publicly scrutinise and vote on planning decisions only in exceptional circumstances, even for schedule 2 applications. With no committees for the vast majority of decisions, they will also mean that the public lose their chance to speak for a few minutes in front of those deciding on what gets built and where in their local area. In effect, in many circumstances, they will render our constituents and their locally elected representatives bystanders in the future of their own community. The measures seem to directly contradict Labour’s historic mission to redistribute power, not to mention the current drive for devolution and putting decision-making power back in local hands.

Streamlining our processes, in my view, cannot justify to my constituents the loss of their voice through these measures. I fear that the case for these changes relies overwhelmingly on anecdote and the belief that locally elected councillors are too responsive to the hopes and concerns of those they represent, and that by taking councillors out of the equation, more planning applications will be approved in spite of the public’s hopes and concerns.

It is not a lack of planning permissions that underpins our decades-long failure to address our nation’s housing needs, however, and these measures will do nothing to build the hundreds of thousands of council houses we need. Whitehall is also not the best place to define which planning decisions are important enough for local democratic scrutiny; it is our local councils that have the knowledge and understanding of their communities needed to inform that choice.

I absolutely accept that years of incoherent tinkering have created a planning system that is no longer fit for purpose. It is procedurally complex, it does not secure public support for future development, it does not build the affordable homes we need, and it is producing poor-quality, unsustainable outcomes—but making more decisions behind closed doors will not remedy any of that.

Some may argue that this measure represents a shift towards a rules-based planning system by taking democratic discretion out of the equation, but the irony is that it is the decades-long deregulation of our planning system and the ever-growing focus on developer-led, speculative applications for building new housing that make the application of discretionary scrutiny essential. If we wanted a truly rules-based system, we would focus on reform that puts powers in the hands of local communities to decide for themselves through a genuinely co-designed local plan where, how and in what way their housing needs could be met.

To conclude, this is a bad piece of legislation that will do nothing to help our constituents off housing waiting lists or to secure public consent for development in this country. It will hang like an albatross around the Government’s neck. The public anger about and resistance to damaging and speculative plans put forward by profiteering land promoters and developers will not disappear if this legislation comes into force; it will simply be redirected to target the planning officers who will have to enact it, the Members of Parliament who allowed democracy to be quietly killed off in a Committee Room, and Labour Ministers every time a councillor has to explain to their residents that they can no longer publicly scrutinise and challenge inappropriate development because this Government abandoned their own best traditions and stripped them of their rights.

All that the statutory instrument will achieve is more polarisation and yet further erosion of trust in our political system, so I urge the Committee to reject these proposals. I urge the Government to choose a different course that recognises communities as a positive force to be empowered and that focuses on securing the highest-quality development plans to win genuine social licence to build, rather than trying to silence opposition to the development of unhappiness given physical form, which has already done so much damage to our country.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I have great respect for the Minister. I hope that he remains in post or gets a promotion in the upcoming reshuffle. I did not plan to speak today but, although I have heard some good points made in this Committee, I have also heard some nonsense.

This is a terrible idea: I do not think a national scheme of delegation will work across the country. It puts too much power in the hands of planning officers, who do not always get it right. We often fail to talk about how we have to create communities, but when someone makes a bad planning decision, that building is there for generations. There are issues that should be thought about within the planning process, and they will be difficult to solve if an officer has recommended the approval or refusal of a specific application and they have got it wrong. Officers are less likely to live within the council area, so they are less likely to know the place as well as councillors. Councillors should be around that table and should be able to call in planning applications.

Lots of councils do have a scheme of delegation, but it is important that they retain flexibility, because there will be certain applications where local circumstances apply. For example, an application for a house may have to be called in because there are specific issues down a road, or because lots of people have replied to the consultation. Councils need to have that flexibility. The national scheme of delegation will not help the Government in meeting their target of building 1.5 million homes. This is not the problem within the planning system.

As I have said before, the reason that hardly any homes are getting built in this country is developers themselves. Most applications that go through the planning process get approved. It takes such a long time for developers to get their planning application not because the approval process is slow, but because they actively go against what the council is seeking to achieve within its local plan or what local people want. If, when they originally bought the piece of land and wanted to create their development, they came around the table and worked hand in hand with the council, they would get through that process a lot quicker. As leader of Broxbourne council, I had loads of experience of dealing with developers who would take ages to get through the planning system because they would not do what the council asked them to.

The idea that this legislation will speed up the planning process and solve all the issues, and then 1.5 million homes will be built over the course of this Parliament, is just utter nonsense. This is not the right part of the process for the Government to be attacking. This is an incredibly bad idea. It is not well thought-out. It will create issues down the line, when officers approve lots of planning applications and people do not understand why they have been approved, and it will cause fundamental issues for parking, healthcare facilities and education that will have no democratic oversight.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on this and try to improve the planning system, because I do not think this piece of legislation does that. It is an attack on democracy, and it is all about concreting over the green belt.

I knew that this instrument would provoke strong feelings, and it has done so, but I very much welcome the scrutiny provided by hon. Members and the considered contributions they have made.

The first thing to say is that a principled case has been advanced—as it was during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—from members of the Committee who do not believe that a national scheme of delegation is warranted in any way. We have heard some of those arguments today, but, quite frankly, the time for those arguments has passed; the Act containing the enabling powers for these regulations passed both Houses after extensive scrutiny. We are talking about the form that the regulations take in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement to try to get the balance right in terms of the two-tier system we are introducing.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, put a number of questions to me. The first touched on the rationale for the regulations in a fundamental way. As I said, we recognise the important role that planning committees play in ensuring local democratic oversight, and they will continue, once the regulations have passed—if they pass—to play a crucial role in planning decision making in the future. Across the country, we have a plethora of local schemes of delegation with huge variation, and that postcode lottery of schemes of delegation creates uncertainty. It slows down the planning system in important respects, which is why these regulations are required. We have made a raft of changes through our reforms to the planning system and are introducing a new system to bring forward local plans quicker.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne mentioned the importance of local plans, and I absolutely agree with him. It is a travesty that we inherited a system with such low local plan coverage that was up to date. We have made concerted efforts, as he knows, to try and drive up coverage of local plans across the country, to introduce a more rules-based national planning policy framework and to resource planning authorities to ensure that they can do the job they need to. Planning committees will continue to play a vital role in exercising democratic oversight, but we have to ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible and are focused on larger, more complex applications where member input is required.

The Government trust expert planning officers. The question for us is finding the right level of trust and empowerment to allow them to resolve the applications that we propose to put in schedule 1 of the regulations more quickly in the service of residents and businesses. Only 5% of minor residential development applications are determined by committee, but that 5% adds a lot of time to what are, when it comes to residential development for example, quite minor applications. Local input in planning decisions will continue to be incredibly important, including from elected representatives. We believe that the best way for councillors and communities to engage in development is through the local plan process; that is the point at which local councillors can ensure that the local policies that planning officers would have to follow in respect of schedule 1 applications are in place. The changes we are making through the national scheme of delegation will support that plan-led system. They will ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible by focusing, as I have said, on those major decisions.

We recognise that some planning applications are potentially complex or controversial. That is why we have created a framework where schedule 2 applications can go to committee for consultation when additional scrutiny is necessary. For example, schedule 2 includes listed building consent applications. In the vast majority of cases, we would expect those to be delegated to officers without any consequence, but there will always be a few cases that raise more significant issues and where members will want to take a view. Where a controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors can still play a key role in representing the voices of their constituents.

I absolutely refute the Liberal Democrat spokesman’s argument that the regulations completely remove the role of councillors or cause the death of local democracy, as he sought to portray it. Local people will still be able to make representations on individual developments through the application process. Local councillors will be able to submit their views or objections, and, as the hon. Member knows because of his experience in the planning service, those concerns must be taken into account when, in the case of schedule 1 applications, the officer is reaching a decision. We are not changing anything in that respect.

The Minister is being generous in giving way. As he knows, we fundamentally disagree with these proposals. He has just illustrated the point that councillors will be reduced to the same role as members of the public: they may make representations, but that is it.

And we think that is right on schedule 1 applications. They are a very different proposition from schedule 2 applications, which we think members should be able to take a view on through the gateway test.

The Minister mentions local plans and schemes of delegation. If a developer comes forward with a planning application that is not allocated within the local plan, how will that be dealt with? Will it be deal with through schemes of delegation, or would it automatically go to committee?

That is a fair question. As I set out in my opening remarks, if such an application were to meet the conditions in schedule 2, it would go in front of the chief planning officer, in most instances, and the chair of the planning committee, and a gateway test would determine whether it meets the criteria that I have set out. If it does, the local authority can put the decision in front of elected members, as happens now with an officer recommendation, so we are not changing that. I have listed the types of application that fall under schedule 1: minor residential development under 10 units, minor commercial development and so on. There might be a principled difference of opinion here, which I respect, but we do think that expert planning officers should be able to take decisions on those matters.

The hon. Member for Orpington challenged me on the impact of the fact that 96% are already not determined by committee. In a sense, he was saying, “What’s the point of these regulations, given that we have local schemes of delegation doing the job?” As highlighted in the impact assessment for these reforms to the Planning and Infrastructure Act, we expect these reforms to have a small but positive impact on the delivery of housing in this Parliament. We have never suggested that they are a silver bullet for all the issues that we face in the planning system. The Act’s impact assessment covered a number of options, including our lead option of delegating when applications are in line with local plans. We explored that issue, but the regulations take a more structured approach to delegating along the lines of application type, so we need to update the assessment to reflect that.

We recognise that only approximately 4% of decisions are made by committees at present, but that percentage represents a substantial proportion of total units in the planning process because many major applications go to planning committee for consideration. Under the circumstances that we have outlined for the gateway test, they might not necessarily do so as they might not meet those criteria. Streamlining the planning process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities.

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I understand his point that the 4% of applications contain a significant number of units, but does he have a figure for that? How many extra units will be granted planning permission as a result of this change?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have just made. The impact assessment for the Act was published on the basis of a particular scenario, which we have modified. We need to update the impact assessment and we will do so in due course so that he has a better sense of the impact.

The impact is tangible and real, in terms of what can go through schedule 2. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications in schedule 1, so it will speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up important officer time to focus on larger applications that have a real impact on housing delivery.

Several hon. Members mentioned councillors’ ability to call in applications, which we are removing. The regulations do not require local authorities to put every schedule 2 application through the gateway test. It will be for individual local planning authorities to put in place their own arrangements for how the consideration of cases for referral to committee will operate in practice. In other words, it will be open to individual LPAs to triage their schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them so that only certain schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. Under those arrangements, it would be open to a local planning authority to include a mechanism for councillors to ask for applications that fall under schedule 2 to be considered under the gateway test, and if they meet that test they can be looked at by committee.

Is that not potentially reintroducing the same level of discretion and difference across the country if local planning authorities choose to use those powers in different ways?

I do not believe so, because local planning authority schemes must adhere to planning regulations and meet the gateway test—in the sense of what can pass a committee—and the statutory guidance to which they must have regard. In a sense, we want to ensure that applications passing through the gateway and considered by committees are larger, complex and more controversial cases, and that less significant applications are determined by planning officers.

That leads me to the legal obligations on officers. In a sense, the question has been put to me, “Can we trust local planning officers to make these decisions?” I must make it clear that officers working for local authorities are bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications. They must, by law, take all material considerations into account, including relevant parts of a local plan—that is why having an up-to-date local plan in place is so significant—and national planning policy. The law also requires their decisions to be rational. Planning officers’ actions must adhere to codes of conduct, be they those of the local planning authority or of the professional institutes to which they belong. Taken together, we think that these measures provide strong safeguards to underpin the integrity of decisions.

The Minister is being very generous with his time. How can the public deal with planning officers who get it wrong? At the moment, if a planning committee gets it wrong, the public can go out to the ballot box and vote for someone else. They cannot do that with planning officers who make the wrong decisions.

Planning officers routinely make decisions without applications going to committee. We trust them to do so; they are bound by the requirements that I have just set out.

The hon. Member touches on a point that I was going to come to. It is important to ensure that we have a highly skilled planning profession and the right training and support in place for officers. We are investing in good decision making by planning officers in councils across the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department has a planning capacity and capability programme that provides a broad range of support covering recruitment, skills, development, training and funding to ensure that local planning authorities have the capability and capacity that they need. Our approach to supporting planning recruitment and skills is deliberately demand-led, allowing local planning authorities to deploy support in line with their specific pressures. As he will know, councils have the flexibility to use support to recruit specialist skills or to upskill existing staff.

To ensure that I respond to all questions, I will make two final points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked about instances in which the local authority is the decision maker or a local authority member is involved. I addressed that in my opening remarks, but it is worth clarifying again. We recognise that, for applications involving a local authority or an officer or member of that authority, committee scrutiny is merited in some cases, in the interests of transparency. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they fall into schedule 1 or schedule 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North made a powerful speech in support of the regulations. However, he asked how we determined which types of application fall into schedule 1. On the specific question of minor residential development, we took that as the appropriate threshold because, unlike in policy, in legislation—the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015—there is a distinction between minor and major development. With “minor development” being under 10 units, we thought that that was the appropriate level to set when it comes to residential developments. Commercial and housing development also falls into schedule 2.

Importantly, a key addition that we made to the regulations following consultation was the requirement for the regulations to be reviewed within two years of their coming into force. That will give us the opportunity to monitor their implementation and identify any issues or unintended consequences resulting from particular types of application placement. That review will take place by 31 October 2028.

Notwithstanding the range of issues and considerations that we have discussed, let me draw the Committee back to what the regulations seek to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision making so that the housing and growth that local communities want—and desperately need in many cases—can be delivered more quickly. I commend the regulations to the Committee.