Lord Russell of Liverpool:

Moved by Lord Russell of Liverpool

290: After Clause 123, insert the following new Clause—“Developer contributions: childcare(1) This section applies where a local authority is making a consideration under—(a) section 106(1)(d) of TCPA 1990 in relation to a “major development”, or (b) Part 4 of this Act. (2) When this section applies, the local authority in question may have regard to—(a) the current availability and affordability of childcare services in the local area,(b) the impact that any new development will have on the availability and affordability of childcare services in the local area, and(c) the need to promote high-quality affordable childcare in line with sections 6 and 7 of the Childcare Act 2006.(3) When setting obligations to which this section applies, the local authority must publish a statement setting out the reasons underpinning their decision to allocate the level of funding or support they have to early years or childcare services and settings.(4) Nothing in this section prevents a local authority from having regard to any factor not mentioned in this section when making a relevant consideration.(5) “Major development” here has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595).”Member's explanatory statementThis amendment would make clear that local authorities are empowered, but not required, to use developer contributions to fund childcare services and settings. It would also require them to publish a statement explaining why – in relation to large developer contributions – they did or did not direct any funding towards childcare services and settings. This would only apply to major developments, as is currently the case for affordable housing considerations.

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 290 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. I thank all those who have supported this amendment, in particular the large number of Conservative noble Baronesses I have managed to nobble—it was 16 at the last count, I think —all of whom have indicated their strong support, in principle, for it. I will not bore your Lordships or broadcast my ignorance by opining on the 24 other amendments in this rather large group; I am confident that others will make their own cases at an appropriate, or even inappropriate, point.

We are all aware of the challenges facing parents of young children in the country today. Childcare is too expensive and often extremely hard to access. Even if one is able to afford it, often it is not there. I think we would all agree that, when a parent will lose money if they go back to work because the childcare that they can access is more expensive that what they can earn back in the workplace, the system is not working as it should.

Over the past seven years, the children’s charity Coram—I declare my interest as a governor—has done some research and indicated that prices have risen by 40%, far outstripping inflation and wage growth. However, these price rises have been driven in part by the growing scarcity of childcare services. The Government’s own data shows the systematic underfunding over several years of the so-called free hours, giving nurseries a rather invidious choice between closing down and pushing prices up for the hours that they charge for. The end result is that 5,000 providers closed their doors for good last year. In more than half of local authorities, there is not enough childcare provision for very young children. This is letting families across the country down and is holding back our economy as new parents are forced to give up careers.

Against this backdrop, the Chancellor has announced an extremely welcome massive expansion of government-funded childcare over the next three years. This will see hundreds of thousands of children receive some childcare for free but, potentially, increasing demand for already scarce nursery places. The Government have recognised that this cannot happen overnight but they have not—so far, at least—put in place funding specifically to increase the number and capacity of nurseries. This amendment is by no means the complete solution to the problem but we suggest that it should be part of the picture as we work out just how we are going to deliver on the promises that the Chancellor has made.

It is a long-established principle that, when developers build new homes at scale in what is termed a “major project”, they must contribute towards the extra public service capacity that these developments take up. Whether they are schools, GP surgeries or public transport links, these contributions help to ensure that a major development is acceptable and additive to local communities. Unfortunately, one area where this simply is not happening is the provision of childcare services and facilities. Over the past five years, around £35 billion has been raised from developers to fund affordable housing and community infrastructure. About a third of that has been spent on infrastructure such as repairing roads and extending or building new schools. However, of that £35 billion, the total amount that has been spent on childcare provision is £22 million, which is not very impressive. That is equivalent to £1 for every £1,667 raised from developers—a slight imbalance, perhaps.

There are some areas that have done well. In East Sussex, over £900,000 has been spent on expanding two nurseries. On the Isle of Wight, £200,000 has been spent on extending a family centre. In Knowsley, in Liverpool, almost £2 million has been spent on two new nurseries. However, these represent a disappointingly small set of areas. In responding to a freedom of information request to identify what they had or had not done, more than 90% of local authorities indicated that they had not spent a single penny of developer contributions on childcare or early years support. Since the guidance on both the community infrastructure levy and Section 106 contributions does not mention early years settings at all, this should not come as a great surprise.

Amendment 290 would not force local authorities to spend their money differently. All it would do is make it crystal clear and explicit to them that they can do so and that, in doing so, they will potentially help the Government to deliver on their commitments and policies. Local authorities have focused primarily on schools, not early years provision. While early years provision is meant to be understood as being implicitly included in the schools category, it is mostly not being included or considered at all. On Report in the other place, the Minister, Lucy Frazer, said that

“it is crucial that children get the support, care and education they deserve. It must be the case that nurseries and pre-schools fall within the definition of ‘schools and other educational facilities’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/22; col. 962.]

However, the clear evidence from the freedom of information data is that, 90% of the time, that simply is not happening. I am sure that this is not wilful or intentional neglect; I just think that local authorities do not regard early years provision as a priority to be fully considered. All our amendment asks the Government to do is to make it explicit, rather than implicit, that the need for childcare services should be taken into account. It asks the local authority

“to publish a statement explaining why … they did or did not” allocate funding or support to childcare services.

At Second Reading, I mentioned that I had undertaken some research on behalf of the Minister to find, given her distinguished 10-year tenure as the leader of Wiltshire Council, a term in Wiltshire dialect that would clarify the intent of this amendment. The noun that I found was “jiffling”, which, in everyday English, means “confusion”. I hope the Minister will agree that, of the myriad amendments that she has dealt with so far and will deal with in future, this is one of the more straightforward, more diplomatic and least contentious ones. It is also fully aligned with the direction and intent of government policy and its purpose, which is simply to eliminate the possibility of any jiffling when local authorities evaluate the potential need for childcare services when reviewing any major project. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and add a brief footnote to the speech he made on Amendment 290, to which I have added my name. As he said, the amendment makes it explicit that the infrastructure levy can be used to make childcare accessible and affordable.

I will make four brief points. First, in standing back and looking at total expenditure on all ages of children under 18, I believe we spend too low a percentage on under-fives and too great a percentage on older age groups, in terms of outcome both for society as a whole and for the individual child. I believe that a pound’s worth of investment spent earlier yields a greater return than if spent later. This is not the time to defend that assertion, but it is relevant to the debate.

Secondly, I therefore welcome the priority the Government have recently given to childcare, with £204 million of additional funding this year increasing to £288 million by 2024-25, on top of the £4.1 billion previously announced, together with earlier announcements about family hubs.

Thirdly, in expanding free entitlement, if that additional funding is inadequate, there is a risk that, as the noble Lord just said, providers continue to remove themselves from the market or reduce the quality of care provided. If the latter happens, it would place the priority of providing employment opportunities for parents above the purpose of child development. Increasing the demand for childcare places by making it cheaper without increasing funding for staff salaries may make it harder to find a nursery space in the first place. At the moment, it is not at all clear where the extra places will come from. Sam Freedman, an author and political columnist, posted the following on Twitter:

“we haven’t been given a figure for the new hourly rate but based on the overall cost for 3+4 year olds (£288m for 2024/5) it looks way too low. We proposed adding in £2bn to make it sustainable”.

Fourthly, the current business model for much of childcare relies on cross-subsidy from the better-off parents who can afford the extra hours to make good the gap in statutory funding. I was rereading the report of the Lords Select Committee on Affordable Childcare, published in February 2015, which said this about cross-subsidy:

“There is evidence that the funding shortfall in the rates offered to” private, voluntary or independent

“providers for delivery of the free early education entitlement is met in some settings by cross-subsidisation from some fee-paying parents. This means that parents are subsidising themselves, or other parents, in order to benefit from the Government’s flagship early education policy”.

At the moment, of course, nurseries subsidise the too-low, free, hourly rate by charging more for one and two year-olds, hence the high prices. But, if one and two year-olds get free hours, as proposed, you cannot get the cross-subsidy. As free entitlement is expanded to more of the market and more of the week, it undermines the current business model for those who are providing childcare. If we want to achieve the Government’s policy on childcare and levelling up, we need to ensure that extra resources are available. That is what this amendment does.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 290, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to which my name is attached. I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s leadership on this issue and apologise to the Committee, as I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I will just make a few additional points to those already made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Young. As a member of the Lords Select Committee on Affordable Childcare, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young, just referred, I very much want to underline the points he made about cross- subsidisation.

This amendment, which makes it explicit that childcare services are considered a proper use of developer contributions by local authorities, is incredibly important. We need to see it written down. At the moment, there is nothing in legislation or guidance, and this would be only an option for local authorities—not something they are required to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, it is hardly a surprise that so few local authorities are spending any of their developer contributions on childcare services. To reiterate his point, in the last five years, only 22 local authorities have spent anything on them.

As all noble Lords know, the childcare sector is under huge pressure. Last year, more than 5,000 providers closed down. Depending on which estimate you prefer, the difficulties in accessing affordable childcare cost our economy between £11 billion and £30 billion a year. Women in particular often have no choice but to give up work after having children. Even if they return later, they will see their earnings stunted for the rest of their careers as a result. We can see this clearly in the gender pay gap: women’s weekly earnings and labour force participation fall substantially when they have their first child and do not reverse a decade later. This is not just about childcare—there are other major barriers that women face—but it is a really important issue. We know we have serious productivity problems as a nation, and this is something that we cannot ignore.

I was also glad to see in the recent Budget that the Government recognise this challenge. I welcome the Budget announcement, but this does not change the fundamental fact that our childcare system is in a precarious state. Liberal Democrats have been calling for properly funded, genuinely free childcare for years because, unless the Government fund free hours at the actual cost of providing them, it will make the problems parents face—a chronic lack of providers and eye-watering fees for full-time childcare—even worse.

Childcare is an essential part of our economic infra- structure. For many parents, it is as crucial to getting to work as roads or trains. I know that this amendment would not solve all these problems, but it would help to ensure that families with children do not see childcare prices forced up or waiting lists becoming even longer as a result of much-needed new and affordable housing. That is why I support this important amendment.

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group in my noble friend Lady Hayman’s name and in my name, and comment on other amendments submitted. As this is the first group on the infrastructure levy before the Committee, I will make some general comments, which I will try not to repeat in future groups so as not to test Members’ patience.

The introduction of the infrastructure levy has broadly been welcomed by local government and the Local Government Association, as it is non-negotiable and set at a local level. I hope that, eventually, it will rationalise the current system of the CIL and Section 106. However, as my grandmother is from Wiltshire, I feel justified in saying that it is a jiffling picture at the moment.

The proof of its success will be whether the levy delivers more in infrastructure, affordable housing and, key to this group of amendments, some of the social infra- structure that greatly concerns local residents when they hear of new development. Key to this is whether, as the current community infrastructure levy and Section 106 system transitions to this new arrangement, the levy actually delivers at least as much as, if not more than, the current system. What protections does local government have against the temptation for Secretaries of State—I will not name anyone—to top-slice the infrastructure levy?

Forgive my cynicism, but I have the clear memory of the new homes bonus in mind. The new homes bonus was, first, top-sliced from local authority budgets then cut in successive years, so it was really just another mechanism to cut local government budgets. I know that the infrastructure levy is substantially different, in that funding is delivered from the development sector, but will this be too tempting a pot for the Treasury to resist?

The LGA has expressed concerns that significant elements of the levy are not yet clear in the Bill, such as definitions of larger sites, rate-setting and the relationship between different tiers of authorities that will be in receipt of the levy. There also needs to be a clear definition of what infrastructure is in scope and what is not, which is the subject of many amendments in this group. For example, if the system is to move on from Section 106, how will contributions towards issues currently funded by that method be treated, such as skills, apprenticeships and the local workforce—in other words, issues that sit outside the built environment?

Local government has also urged the Government to reconsider the timing of the levy. The new system as proposed may help developers’ cash flow, but local authorities want to ensure that infrastructure is provided early in the development process so that existing local residents can be reassured that there will not be an uncomfortable transition phase while the provision of infrastructure lags behind development and results in a period of pressure on existing resources. I moved around our new town four or five times when I was growing up, as new developments were built, each time to areas with no shops or services and little in the way of public transport. The sequencing of infrastructure is really important.

Like many other voices in local government, I have long been an advocate for removing the permitted development process, which undermines local plan-making and the quality standards of new homes. But if the Government insist on retaining permitted development—it looks as though they will—there must be a way of applying the levy to such change-of-use developments.

Many of the amendments in this group are seeking some clarity from the Government about how the infra- structure levy can be used and how they will demonstrate what is being achieved in this respect. Our Amendment 314, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman, raises the key issue of demonstrating how the levy will impact public transport in travel-to-work areas and requests that the Minister must publish within two years of Royal Assent a summary setting out progress. If we are serious about reducing car dependency to aid our net-zero ambitions, clear commitments from this legislation are essential.

Similarly, Amendment 315 probes whether the levy may be used in relation to the contribution required for restoring railways. We have heard a great deal in earlier discussions on the Bill about, for example, the use of restored former rail routes to improve interconnectivity. The levy could provide a very important contribution to this. We hope that when we see the detail of the regulations associated with the levy, it will be empowered to do so.

Amendment 316 again probes the intended scope of the infrastructure levy. When we talk to local people, their concerns about new developments, as well as the impact on the environment, are often about the pressure that these put on services and facilities that meet local and strategic needs and contribute towards a good quality of life, such as health provision, education, community, play, youth services, recreation, sports, faith and emergency services facilities. Too often, they have felt that developers focus just on the profit side of the equation, with little regard for the needs of existing communities or those for whom they are building. Although CIL and Section 106 have made some provision for parts of social infrastructure in the past, they have been too limited in the amount provided and in restrictions on what is provided. As an extreme example, in my borough, a Section 106 agreement could be used only to deliver a bus shelter in an area that had long since lost its only bus service. We would like to see a broad scope for the infrastructure levy, driven locally by local need and with flexibility for it to be used in appropriate ways as communities develop.

It would be wrong not to mention the knotty issue of viability. I draw attention to the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, which say at paragraph 725:

“The purpose of IL is: to ensure that the costs incurred in supporting the development of an area (including by the provision of affordable housing), and achieving any additional purpose specified in IL regulations, are funded at least in part by owners or developers of land, but in a way that does not make development in the area economically unviable”.

One has to ask: unviable to whom? If the infrastructure needed is not to be provided through this route, how is it to be provided? Will it be by the local authorities which are already so strapped for cash they are cutting services, not developing them, or by the Government? My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 343 seeks to specify a wider scope for the infrastructure levy in the Bill, so that it is clear that developers may be asked to make wider contributions to the infrastructure demands that their development is driving.

Amendment 355, in my name, seeks to limit the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can direct a charging authority to review its charging schedule. We understand why it may be necessary to ensure that charging schedules are kept up to date, but surely these timescales are for local determination, and it should be only in the most extreme circumstances that intervention would be necessary. The community infrastructure levy itself is a relatively new form of charging infrastructure against developments, so it will be important to have a benchmark on what it has achieved in this respect so that it is possible to assess the infrastructure levy against the current arrangements.

I will comment briefly on other amendments in this group. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is to ensure that large-scale developments can be required to provide funding for childcare services and settings. My noble friend Lady Hayman’s Amendment 343 also seeks to broaden the scope of social provision under the infrastructure levy. In her amendment to Schedule 11, paragraph (c) refers specifically to nurseries, so we support this amendment. The plea of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, was powerfully made. Having been a single parent myself, I know that the issue of nurseries and childcare is really vital, but we need to identify what the infrastructure levy can do with capital and revenue funding streams. It is no good building nurseries if there is no funding to run them. The noble Lord, Lord Young, was right to raise the complex issues around funding for childcare. If we are going to resolve some of this through the infrastructure levy, we need to understand how.

There are a number of amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Wasserman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter regarding the implications of the infrastructure levy for our emergency services. We understand the motivation behind these amendments: although emergency services may be asked to comment and make submissions on planning applications, they are, more often than not, unable to be there at the point of decision-making. It is important that the Bill gives clarification on how emergency services are to be treated for the purposes of the infrastructure levy.

Amendment 335, in the name of my noble friend Lady Warwick, the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, seeks to ensure that infrastructure levy funds cannot be used by local authorities to cover the costs of unspecified items. The wording in Schedule 11, which this amendment would remove, is simply not clear enough. The amendment highlights again how important it is that the Bill is absolutely clear about what can be covered by IL and what cannot.

We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his tireless pursuit of opportunities that the Bill could give to increase the delivery of supported housing, particularly for older people. We believe that this should be a strong consideration in the structure of the infrastructure levy, so we support his amendment. The noble Lord’s Amendments 337 to 339 and 354 all refer to the independent examination of the IL charging schedules by an independent examiner. We look forward to the Minister’s comments on the rationale for this provision in Schedule 11. Is this service to come under the remit of the Planning Inspectorate? If not, who will carry out this role, how, and how will they be appointed?

In respect of Amendment 348 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, we are interested to hear the views of the Minister on the treatment of town and parish councils under the new infrastructure levy regime. There are over 10,000 parish, town and community councils in England, ably represented by the National Association of Local Councils. Is it the intention of the Bill that these councils be a specified recipient of the neighbourhood share of the infrastructure levy; for that share to be 25%, or 35% for a parish council with a neighbourhood development plan; and for a parish council to have full flexibility over how those receipts are spent?

NALC believes that the higher CIL amount provides an additional incentive to undertake a neighbourhood development plan and to identify extra investment in infrastructure or anything else concerned with addressing demands of development. Do the Government intend to build on CIL for the new infrastructure levy, with a parish council being the body which will receive the neighbourhood share? They are not named explicitly in the Bill. Will the uplift in neighbourhood share still be available to parish councils which have prepared a neighbourhood plan?

I hope your Lordships will forgive me for a long intervention, but this is a huge group with a lot of different amendments in it. In summary, a great deal of clarification is needed around the introduction of the infrastructure levy. We urge that as much of this clarification as possible is included in the Bill and that there is a thorough period of pilots introduced to test the implementation of the infrastructure levy in practice and whether it can deliver against the opportunities that it should be able to realise.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 324, 329, 342, 346, 347, 351, 352 and 360 in my name. I have tabled them on behalf of the emergency services of England, including the following organisations: the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, the National Fire Chiefs Council, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the National Police Estates Group and the National Fire Estates Group. I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As extraordinary as it sounds, the English planning system has never recognised the emergency services as critical infrastructure providers anywhere in primary legislation, national planning policy or statutory guidance. The result of this is that, while new development such as housing estates, bars, restaurants, nightclubs, theatres, warehouses, factories or even power stations place additional demands on the emergency services that stretch existing resources, it is rare for mitigation in the form of developer contributions from Section 106 and the community infrastructure levy to be put in place to alleviate this.

The failure to recognise the emergency services in legislation is a colossal blind spot in the planning system, which has had dire practical results when the emergency services seek to obtain funding for the essential ambulance, fire and rescue, and police infrastructure needed to support new development of all kinds. This is demonstrated by the following figures. The Section 106 system started in 1990. In the 33 years since it has been operating the emergency services of England have been awarded a combined total of £25.4 million, which is a paltry amount when DLUHC’s own figures show that other infrastructure types such as education receive hundreds of millions of pounds per year from the Section 106 system.

There are 10 ambulance trusts in England, but none has ever received a Section 106 contribution at all. In England, there are 39 territorial police forces, but of this total only 12 have ever been awarded a Section 106 contribution since the system started. Of this total, only four of the 12 forces still receive such contributions on a regular basis. Of the 48 fire and rescue services in England, only five have ever been awarded a Section 106 contribution and none has been a regular recipient.

The situation with respect to the community infra- structure levy, or CIL, is even worse than with respect to the Section 106 system. Since it started nearly 13 years ago, the emergency services in England have been awarded a combined total of only £1.5 million—a terrible contrast with the fact that the CIL system in England raises hundreds of millions of pounds for other infrastructure types every year.

The Government have accepted that these problems exist and that action needs to be taken to solve them, so that the emergency services have an equal seat with other infrastructure providers at the negotiating table. I am grateful for a letter to me on 16 March from Housing Minister Rachel Maclean, which points to the reference to the emergency services in proposed new Clause 204N(3) in Schedule 11 to the Bill, meaning that they are referenced for the new proposed infra- structure levy. The Minister has committed to include emergency service providers as a required consultee for the infrastructure delivery strategy through regulations. The Minister has also committed to reviewing the NPPF as part of a wholesale review and consultation once the Bill has received Royal Assent, to consider whether there can be explicit references made to the emergency services, putting them on an equal footing with other forms of infrastructure such as education. Finally, the Minister has committed to reviewing planning practice guidance to add reference to the emergency services with regard to the use of developer contributions.

The commitments from the Government are very welcome, and it has been helpful to have meetings with my noble friend the Minister, but these measures are not enough, for a number of reasons. The Government have confirmed that the new infrastructure levy will not be introduced fully for 10 years—that is, not until 2033. That means that Section 106 agreements and CIL will continue as the main sources of developer contributions for another decade, and possibly much longer in England. The definition in proposed new Clause 204N(3) refers only to the infrastructure levy. It will not apply to Section 106 and CIL. The new infrastructure levy will be a complex mechanism in its establishment, operation and application, and yet the Bill contains only a single reference that the emergency services may benefit from it, with no other provisions. The experience with CIL of the emergency services demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that they would receive little or nothing from the new infrastructure levy in practice.

Even more seriously, without further amendments to the Bill, there could well be the inadvertent consequence that the current provision will be interpreted by the vast majority of local planning authorities and developers alike as confirming that the Government do not intend for the emergency services to access money raised through Section 106 and CIL. This would close what little access the emergency services have to these two systems, leading to the already paltry amounts being awarded being reduced to zero. That is why the chairs of the emergency services wrote to the Housing Minister on 31 March 2023, offering a way forward—to withdraw six of our eight amendments, provided that two key amendments to the Bill be agreed alongside the measures proposed by the Minister to address their concerns.

The first of those is Amendment 324, to provide a fuller definition of emergency and rescue services. This definition is needed in the absence of one for the emergency and rescue services within the primary legislation governing the planning system. The second is a modified version of Amendment 360, which clarifies that emergency services can receive money from Section 106 agreements and CIL while ensuring that local authorities have primacy of decision-making. This offer was made in a constructive spirit but, so far, we have had no response from the Minister. It would be helpful if my noble friend could provide an update.

We need to find a solution to deal with this issue. If we do not, the existing situation will continue and the thin blue, red and yellow lines will be reduced ever further, as the ambulance, fire and rescue, and police services spread themselves ever more thinly over a greater area to try to cover new developments of all kinds.

My Lords, I rise in support Amendments 324, 329, 342, 346, 347, 351, 352 and 360 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and to which I have added my name. They concern planning reform and the emergency services.

A robust and effective planning process is essential for the flourishing of our communities. A key aspect of this is to ensure the adequate provision of emergency services. I welcome the fact that the Bill has included emergency services in the definition of infrastructure under Schedule 11, but, historically, this has not always been the case. It remains the fact that local authorities are not obliged to take into account the views and concerns of the emergency services.

Those living in new developments such as in Plymouth and Exeter, my own diocese, rightly expect to be provided with the same level of service and protection afforded to all citizens. The increased demands on the emergency services posed by new developments require additional funding. In this way, the emergency services are no different from any other infrastructure provider. However, the lack of recognition in legislation and national planning policy has made it extremely hard for emergency services to access funding from the infrastructure levy, Section 106 money and community infrastructure levy systems. The obvious result is that the services provided are diluted.

The Bill in its current form does not mitigate these problems and the thrust of these amendments seeks to address the historic disfranchisement of the emergency services in our planning processes. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in recognising the vital contribution that those who work in the emergency services make to our common life. It should therefore be incumbent upon us to ensure that in the planning and formation of new developments, the emergency services have an equal seat at the planning table. I gladly support this.

My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 331 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. It an extremely important amendment and I will be very interested to hear what the Minister says in reply. In that sense, this is, at this stage, a probing amendment. It would enable infrastructure levy-charging authorities to require a developer to pay their full IL liability, or infrastructure funded by IL associated with the development to be built before development may commence, and would enable developers to be required at the request of the authority to provide money for remedial work. Under current systems, of which across this Chamber there is huge amount of experience, there are constant delays in the delivery of infrastructure and remediation and failures to deliver the affordable housing needed in an area, and it takes ages to negotiate and renegotiate the terms of the community infrastructure levy or Section 106.

An amendment of this kind, which would require payment of the infrastructure levy up front, would speed up development because it would concentrate the minds of the developers and bring clarity to the contractual status of the infrastructure levy, and it would, in our view, have a positive impact on the development process. Of course, it would not be compulsory to charge it up front, but it would be possible to do so if a local planning authority felt that it was the right approach. That is the proposal in Amendment 331.

I have long felt that we spend far too much time trying to cope with negotiations where developers seek to make changes to the promises that they have made. I look forward to the Minister’s reply to see whether the Government think that there is some mileage in a proposal of this kind that would get payment made up front rather than later, however staged that process may be through a development being put on to the ground.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 335 in this group. Each amendment in this group deals with the impact of the proposed infrastructure levy on different aspects of social infrastructure. The levy is one of the most consequential aspect of the Bill, which proposes a new infrastructure levy largely to replace the current system for developer contributions. Developer contributions currently play a vital role in delivering affordable and social housing. Section 106 agreements alone accounted for 47.3% of all affordable homes in 2021-22, a figure that represents 12% of all new homes delivered annually. Section 106 is not a perfect process, but while there is clear scope to reform and improve the existing system for developer contributions, it is none the less responsible for a huge proportion of new affordable and social homes. As its proposed replacement, the infrastructure levy represents a radical shift in how this housing will be funded and delivered.

There are 4.2 million people currently in need of social housing in England. This means one in five children is living in an overcrowded, unaffordable or unsuitable home. Research published last week by the National Housing Federation found that more than 310,000 children in England are forced to share beds with other family members—I have already put down a Question on that issue. That means that one in every six children is being forced to live in cramped conditions because their family cannot access a suitable and affordable home. This equates to 2 million children from 746,000 families.

Against this backdrop of acute housing need, changes to the planning system must, at minimum, protect current levels of new affordable housing. It is with this principle in mind that I tabled four amendments to Schedule 11. Each of those amendments seeks to strengthen protections for affordable housing in this legislation and ensure that the infrastructure levy does not lead to a net loss of affordable housing. I am pleased to have received support for these amendments from the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford.

I now turn to my amendment in this group. A key threat to the supply of affordable housing via the infra- structure levy is its potential to result in the diversion of developer contributions away from affordable housing and towards other unspecified forms of infrastructure unconnected to development. As long as there are clear affordable housing needs, it is essential that local authorities’ use of developer contributions for purposes other than affordable housing is strictly limited. My amendment seeks to prevent levy receipts being spent on unspecified items “other than infrastructure”. In its current form, the new infrastructure levy could lead to the diversion of developer contributions away from affordable housing. By contrast, a high proportion of developer contributions currently obtained via Section 106 agreements is spent on affordable housing. According to research commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in 2020, 78% of Section 106 funds were spent on affordable housing in 2018-19.

I support Amendment 350 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which is in a later group, which seeks to ring- fence 75% of levy receipts for affordable housing based on the current proportional figure for Section 106 funds.

My amendment attempts to remove the risk of future regulations which would permit the diversion of funds away from affordable housing or infrastructure and towards unspecified items provided by a local authority. I hope the Minister will acknowledge the real and present danger inherent in this part of the Bill and explain how the Government propose to mitigate it.

My Lords, very briefly, I support the eight short but important amendments introduced with admirable clarity and persuasiveness by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. Before I say anything more about these amendment I want to apologise to the Committee for having been unable to attend the Second Reading of this important Bill.

As I am sure all noble Lords agree, it is the first responsibility of government to keep us all safe. It gives me great pleasure to be able to say that this is a responsibility that this Government, and their predecessors stretching back to May 2010, have carried out with notable determination and success. However, this is precisely why I am so disappointed that the present Administration have not welcomed with open arms this set of relatively minor and uncontentious amendments, which, if enacted, would make an enormous difference to the safety of our communities.

As many noble Lords may know, these amendments are the product of a group of high-powered experts convened by those who are responsible for keeping us safe. As has already been mentioned by my noble friend, these were the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, the National Police Estates Group and the National Fire Estates Group. The amendments were developed for the express purpose of filling a yawning gap in our national legislative and regulatory arrangements which they believe limits significantly the effectiveness and efficiency of the emergency services for which they are directly responsible.

What is this gap? It is the fact that nowhere on our statute books—not in primary legislation, secondary legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework or the statutory guidance governing the planning system—is there anywhere which recognises the emergency services as providers of critical infrastructure for community safety. This might not matter very much for those of us who live in major cities, as these cities have had the basic support services for the emergency services in place for decades, if not centuries. However, it matters very much for those who live, work, study or play in new developments, such as housing estates, sports stadia, music venues or commercial properties, such as offices, retail parks, warehouses and factories. In these places the need to provide appropriate infra- structure for our emergency services is nowhere specified in our planning system. It is simply assumed that this infrastructure will be there when it is required.

Simply to assume that someone will magically provide the necessary infrastructure for our emergency services, so that these services will be on hand whenever we need them, is not a way to run a country—certainly not a country which believes, as we do, that community safety is the first responsibility of government, be it local, regional or national. To assume that everything will be all right on the night may be an effective way of saving money but it is not an effective way of saving lives. It is the saving of lives which is the primary aim of these amendments.

I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister to accept these amendments, fill this major gap in our legislative and regulatory arrangements, and thereby make a major contribution to the safety of our communities.

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 336 to 339 and 354 in my name, all concerned with the mechanisms of the new infrastructure levy.

Amendment 336, supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, would require planning authorities, when devising their charging schedule for the new infrastructure levy, to recognise that different kinds of development have different levels of viability and profitability. Not least, building specialist accommodation for older people needs more help than building standardised, uniform homes for sale or rent with the minimum of extra amenities. The amendment seeks to ensure that the charging schedule for the infrastructure levy recognises that more help from the levy will be needed for more specialist developments.

We have had excellent debates in this Committee on housing for older people, and indeed on how the socially worthwhile elements of new residential developments affect viability, so I will not detain your Lordships by making the case that the new levy arrangements should enhance the production of much-needed supported housing, such as retirement accommodation. I simply commend this tweak to the IL arrangements.

I am also speaking to the cluster of amendments in my name—Amendments 337 to 339 and 354—that all relate to one key point. They come from the well-respected Royal Town Planning Institute and are intended to simplify the processes for creating the infrastructure levy. They would do so by getting rid of the requirement for an independent examination of IL charging schedules, relying instead on a simpler, direct relationship between the local planning authority and the Secretary of State.

The RTPI argues that, since the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the examination outcomes are regarded as unsuitable, an additional independent examination is an unnecessary extra step and should be replaced, in setting the IL rates, by direct dealings between central and local government. That would have the beneficial effect of deterring the lengthy and costly legal challenges to charging schedules that can otherwise be expected.

As noble Lords know, the Bill introduces a new mandatory framework for local planning authorities to extract the infrastructure levy from developers carrying out new development. Local planning authorities will be required to prepare a charging schedule and a price list outlining local costs and thresholds of development for the levy, and to consult the public accordingly. In addition, the Bill then requires an independent examination, probably by the Planning Inspectorate, before the charging schedule is published. The Secretary of State will be empowered to require charging schedules to be amended.

All this can become a long-winded and expensive process, so the amendments seek to cut out one of the sources of delay and cost. The Bill’s impact assessment says the new system is estimated to cost between £12 million and £18 million, absorbing a portion of the levy to cover those costs. Ministers have indicated that they expect the implementation of the infrastructure levy to take place over this decade, and the impact assessment explains that the expected start-up and administrative costs for the recruitment and training of personnel in local authorities are expected to be no less than £147 million, and perhaps as much as £440 million, over the 10-year appraisal period.

At present only about half of local planning authorities, 48%, have introduced the current community infra- structure levy, the precursor of the new infrastructure levy. The other councils have considered it unfeasible to introduce the CIL, not least because of the cost. That emphasises the need to keep things simple for the new infrastructure levy.

The amendments would remove the requirement for charging schedules to be examined independently, representing a significant simplification. That would reduce the otherwise heavy administrative burden for the Planning Inspectorate in examining every local authority’s charging schedules within a defined period, which would require considerable extra capacity. The Bill ensures accountability through public consultation, which should mean that infrastructure provision recognises the community’s wishes, and through the guarantee of the Secretary of State’s reserve powers to intervene when necessary.

Amendment 335 was introduced ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe; if more than four names had been allowed in support of this one, mine would have been one of them. The amendment would prevent infrastructure levy receipts being spent on any unspecified items rather than being used for affordable housing or infrastructure. When the Bill was in Committee in the Commons, the Minister said that

“the levy regulations may allow levy receipts to be spent on matters other than infrastructure”— or affordable housing—

“such as improvements to local services and delivery of local programmes that are valued by local communities. Although the infrastructure levy will primarily be spent on infrastructure and affordable housing, that will give us the scope to allow local authorities more flexibility over how they spend the levy if those priorities have been met”.—[Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, 6/9/22; col. 622.]">Official Report, Commons, Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee, 6/9/22; col. 622.]

That somewhat open-ended statement is a bit confusing. It is not of great concern if the final words are the key—namely, that there is flexibility over how councils spend the levy if the infrastructure and affordable housing priorities have been met—but if that opens up the IL resources to be spent on any number of good causes, the whole concept of an infrastructure levy is derailed. Can the Minister please reassure the Committee that this is not an opening of the door to all kinds of worthy but quite different spending? Amendment 335 would clarify the position, and I strongly support it.

My Lords, I support Amendment 335 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and Amendments 336 and 337 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has added her name as the Church of England’s lead bishop for housing. I am aware, as others have commented, that we are touching on matters that will arise again in the 10th group.

Amendment 335 would address a significant weak spot in the infrastructure levy. As the Bill stands, there is no meaningful protection of developer contributions to the infrastructure levy for affordable and social housing. The amendment would remove the risk of infrastructure levy regulations diverting funds away from such housing provision.

I am glad to support Amendment 337 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Together with Amendments 338 and 339, it would remove a portion of Schedule 11 containing wide-ranging provision for the examination of charging schedules for the infrastructure levy.

At an earlier point in our proceedings I was pleased to speak in support of the noble Lord’s Amendments 221 and 207, both of which seek to provide for greater inclusion of older people’s needs in development planning in the Secretary of State’s role and at the level of local authorities. Amendment 336 is a further critical piece to address the challenge of growing needs in our increasingly ageing population and the housing crisis. In enabling the charging authority to consider additional evidence, its ability to determine the viability of developments, including older people’s housing, will be better informed. It is particularly key that such developments are given due and quality consideration as we face growing need.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 348 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. The reason that I have taken on this role is that I am one of her predecessors as president of the National Association of Local Councils. I express my gratitude for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, on the value that she and her party place on that role. I also must declare a professional interest, particularly as a valuer, because from time to time I get to pore over the nitty-gritty of things like development appraisals and viability assessments, which are complex, capable of many interpretations and create all sorts of issues to do with how they may be interpreted.

The introduction of the new infrastructure levy is something to which I give a cautious welcome, but I have some mixed feelings. First, I fear for its flexibility in terms of scheme viability. Secondly, I question the objectivity with which some of that viability is assessed. We have heard about the need for prioritisation and the timing of payment, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. But in global terms, more and more demands are placed on levies that come out of the development process. We have to be careful about what the net figure ends up being when all is said and done. Things such as the timing of payments can have significant effects on the cost and forward funding of things, so it is very important that we get that right and do not end up with, in effect, sclerosis of the system because it can no longer meet the demands for all those mouths that are clamouring to be fed.

I can relate to every single one of the amendments proposed by other noble Lords as necessary social or services infrastructure. It is vital to say that these have to be paid for somehow or other, or else people are committed to unsatisfactory environments and having to travel endlessly for goods and services that are not immediately available. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, made a telling point; she referred to the financing of a bus shelter on a route that no longer existed. Well, I certainly know of parish councils which have complained to me that so much provision had been made under Section 106 contributions for transportation, usually by bus from the local town to whichever area was being developed as a settlement, that there was no way they were ever going to be able to spend that money. There was also no way that it could be allocated to other things. Indeed, for particular large development, that Section 106 contribution might have been lost because it was unable to be usefully deployed for that purpose. I do not know whether that still is the case.

I turn to my main point, which is to do with the role of parish councils and neighbourhood forums. I am absolutely clear that the current definition of a body qualifying as a parish council or a neighbourhood forum, entitling it to receive the neighbourhood share of the community infrastructure levy, which the infrastructure levy will replace, is the right one. It is consistent with the Government’s approach to devolution: to establish democratically accountable bodies that lead their communities. By this means, the neighbourhood council share of the CIL receipts is passed on to parish councils or, in the case of neighbourhood forums, retained by the planning authority, which then involves the neighbourhood forum in determining its use. However, that is at the discretion of the principal authority, and it is not always exercised in a way that supports parish and town council and community-level activities. That may be a matter of simple priorities; I do not indicate it as a criticism of principal authorities. Stuff happens. This is quite an overworked system when we look at how it has to operate in practice. Indeed, the fact that there may be an obligation to pass things on to a parish and town council, properly formed in a location, may itself be a barrier to a willingness by principal authorities to see the formation of new parish and town councils. That is a terrible negative in terms of giving voice to communities and neighbourhoods.

Parish councils are not specifically named in the Bill; the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, referred to that. They are not referred to as an entity to which receipts might be passed. In questioning that, I would also counsel against dilution to narrowly focused bodies that are perhaps not democratically accountable to their wider area. I remind your Lordships that there is no other coherent definition or status in law relating to neighbourhood representation other than parish councils.

There is currently an uplift from 15% to 25% of CIL receipts for a parish council with a made neighbourhood development plan. That provides the additional incentive to go through the process of making that plan in the first place. Of course, it provides for additional investment in community infrastructure that is not dealt with elsewhere. It is right that this should not be any old slush fund, if I can use that term, for general development. It has to be identified; there has to be a properly formulated shopping list, and I think we all recognise that. The problem is that the neighbourhood share of the infrastructure levy, as I understand it and as has been mentioned, could just be 25% as a flat rate. Of course, that does not give any uplift or incentive for communities to go through the neighbourhood plan process. Can the Minister clarify what is intended?

Another issue is that with non-CIL areas, as they are at the moment, parishes do not get the benefit from the basic 15% or the uplifted 25%. All their benefits are brokered through Section 106 and are under the sole discretion of the principal authority. My concern is that if we do not get this right, there will be a marked reduction in willingness to produce neighbourhood plans. That needs to be resolved. It is right that the Government intend to build on the approach that has been established under CIL; uneven and lumpy in its operation though it may be, I think it is the right way forward. That should ensure that communities benefit from the development and that local councils can invest in local infrastructure that is derived from their priorities.

As democratically accountable local leaders, parish councillors should have full flexibility in how the neighbourhood share is used, given, of course, that they need to identify the need. I think that is right. They are often on the front line of dealing with the impact of developments on residents, businesses, services and facilities. The amendment seeks to preserve the principles of CIL and its distribution under the new infrastructure levy. I invite the Minister to consider also the transparency and accountability that must underpin trust in the operations, and which parish councils, in particular, seek to achieve. I know that the Government are at pains to highlight the vital role of the first tier of local government at community level.

I want to mention one other amendment of the many that I would like to support, and that is Amendment 290 tabled by my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. This is one of those bits of infrastructure that are vital to people’s lives and their work-life balance. If we do not get that right—if we just look at the hard infrastructure and do not deal with the social infrastructure—we will in effect blight whole sectors of new communities, that need to bed in, with an existence that does not give them the comfort and the sense of place and fulfilment that they should rightly have in their home. This and of course a number of the other points that have been made are vital. I have to say that I have been sitting on my hands trying not to jump up and down and say “hear, hear” to many of the contributions by other noble Lords.

My Lords, this has been an incredibly wide-ranging, detailed and at times passionate debate, particularly in the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Greenhalgh and Lord Russell of Liverpool. We are all under no illusions that this is a radical change in policy, and therefore it deserves the detailed scrutiny that noble Lords are giving it over three groups today.

We are told that

“The aim of the Infrastructure Levy is to create a fairer and simpler system of developer contributions, which will ultimately capture more value for local authorities and local communities”.

Who does not agree with that? Unfortunately, the more I have read and tried to get to grips with it, the more complex it becomes and, particularly following this debate, I believe there are legitimate questions as to whether this proposal will succeed in its aims.

Listening to noble Lords, it seems that the impetus for many of the amendments, such as Amendments 290, 335—to which I have added my name—336 and 348 and the many in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, reflect the extent to which noble Lords are concerned that the current financial situations of many councils will lead them to spend the infrastructure levy on a wider range of social infrastructure, leaving less for other infrastructure. Conversely, other noble Lords are seeking to see if they can spend it on said items. Amendment 343, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, seeks to broaden the scope of what infrastructure means. In Amendments 315 and 316, she probed—via the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, of course—what should be spent on transport. Transport is surely a no-brainer if we are seeking sustainable development.

However, I am concerned that we are trying to get so much out of the infrastructure levy to make up for the real issue, which is over a decade of underfunding for councils. I say very firmly that we support the need for government to ring-fence money for social housing because we believe that this is a national housing crisis, but we feel very strongly that there should be real autonomy for councils to meet their own identified needs with the rest of the levy. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify not only the apportionment of money, but crucially, the power and autonomy of charging authorities in spending the cash raised. My noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, made a very clear case about the need for up-front moneys, which I hope the Government will take seriously.

So much of this seems to hinge on the infrastructure development strategy. I say to the Minister that I am sure it would help us all if we had more detail about what is expected to be in it. I would value clarification about who signs it off, where it will sit—presumably in the local plan—and its particular relationship to other local plan policies and the NDMPs.

In two-tier areas, CIL has been really controversial, with county councils being concerned or even angry with the levels of CIL set by their districts. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, being both a county councillor and a district leader, will be aware of this tension in Hertfordshire. I am still not sure where the power lies in the final decisions about the priorities within that strategy. I expect it will be in forthcoming guidance, but it will be an area of challenge, from the top combined authorities down to parishes.

Amendment 348, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, argues for a proportion of the neighbourhood allocation of the levy for parishes. Do we yet know what constitutes a neighbourhood or, perhaps, a parish? It seems to me that districts will be very much piggy in the middle in two-tier areas, with much work to do in collaboration and consultation on an area-wide strategy. They will need capacity and support to do this effectively, which is why the Government’s approach of test and learn seems to be the right one. However, can I make a plea? In asking for councils to volunteer, there is a danger that only positively motivated councils will come forward. Perhaps the department could cast around for a two-tier area that has struggled with CIL to get a more accurate picture.

Several tensions were expressed in the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, regarding the role of the appointed examiner relating to charging levels. His message was a detailed critique, but his overarching message was very clear: keep it simple. The setting of levels is clearly at the heart of whether this is a success. It is very technical and an issue which ultimately determines whether the levy will fulfil its promise to raise more money than the current system.

Yet the work carried out by Liverpool University exploring the different types of authorities and how much each would yield in relation to current levels of CIL and Section 106 provided very interesting evidence—probably what we all know. There is more scope to capture more value on greenfield sites in areas with higher development value—in other words, in rural villages and leafy suburbs with high house prices. I am intrigued as to how this finding sits with the Secretary of State’s declarations regarding green-belt development. Yet again, to those who already have a lot shall more be given. Of course, the work also found the reverse to be true; brownfield sites in areas with low-value housing may even find themselves in the infrastructure equivalent of negative equity. There are no prizes for guessing where most of these sorts of areas are. My question to the Minister is: how will this inequality of councils’ actual ability to raise the levy be dealt with? Have there been any adjustments as a result of this research, which they quite rightly commissioned?

All of this and more has led me into thinking about whether this levy is actually going to do what it aspires to, whether it is worth the risks involved and the 10-year timeframe it will take to deliver. But there will be more of that in later groups. We will also probe in a later group how this relates to the crucial area of affordable and social housing. Much more will be said about that, but it has been kicked off well today by the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which we broadly support.

My Lords, I apologise for the length of time that I am going to take, but it has been a very diverse debate about a number of things and some important issues, so please bear with me.

When new development is built, it creates a demand for public services and local infrastructure. The granting of planning permission also increases the value of land. It is important that local authorities can secure contributions from developers to share in the land value uplift that comes from granting planning permission and use this to deliver local infrastructure and affordable housing for communities.

The current system of developer contributions is uncertain and fragmented. The negotiation of Section 106 agreements frequently results in delays in granting planning permission and these agreements can be renegotiated as the development progresses, as we have heard. Local authorities cannot be expected to negotiate as effectively as big developers. The developers can always build elsewhere, which weakens a local authority’s leverage in negotiations. Developers can devote more financial resources to negotiation, out-gunning local authorities. This can generate uncertainty for local communities over how much affordable housing will be available and what infrastructure will be delivered.

Local authorities can also charge the community infrastructure levy, which is a non-negotiable—but optional —charge. Only half of local planning authorities currently charge the levy. Of those that do not, over one-third believe that introducing it would increase their ability to capture land value. The community infrastructure levy is also unresponsive to change in development value as it is charged at a fixed rate per square metre of new development and does not go up in line with house prices. That is why we are introducing the new infrastructure levy; to largely replace the existing system of developer contributions.

The new levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current developer contributions regime by charging rates based on the final value of developments. This should ensure that a fairer price is initially paid for the land by the developer, and then that the developer pays a fairer contribution to the infrastructure and affordable housing. As it is a non-negotiable charge, it should help to reduce delays associated with Section 106 agreements, while maintaining the viability of developments. It will also end the inequality of arms, where local planning authorities must negotiate for affordable housing with developers. The levy will be charged on the majority of types of development, providing opportunities to secure funding for affordable housing and infrastructure from developments that currently contribute very little. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, that the important issue for developer contributions is housing.

The Government recognise that the new infrastructure levy is a significant change and a major undertaking. For this reason, we are taking a “test and learn” approach to its implementation. This will be vital to monitor and test the design of the levy as it works on the ground. This means that, once levy regulations have been developed following Royal Assent, only a small number of local authorities will adopt the levy initially. This “test and learn” approach will allow the Government to continue to work with local authorities, developers and local stakeholders to achieve a system that is optimally designed. We have published a detailed technical consultation, which closes on 9 June, to inform the design of the new levy regulations. We have approached this consultation in a very open manner with the sector, and we really want to listen to, and take on board, the feedback.

I turn to Amendments 290, 324, 335 and 343, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Hayman. The amendments relate to the definition of “infrastructure”. I will highlight first the point that the priority for receipts from the new levy will be the provision of infrastructure: affordable housing, schools, GP surgeries, green spaces and transport. This infrastructure is vital to support the local community and mitigate the impact of any new development.

Although I understand the desire for future levy receipts to be spent on a wider range of other important priorities, I must be clear that this will not be an unlimited pot of money and that any other spending will come at the expense of affordable housing and local infrastructure that is needed to directly mitigate the impact of new development. Although we have the ability to allow for some spending on non-infrastructure priorities through the Bill, we recognise that there are important trade-offs here. Through the consultation, we are testing the extent to which we should require local authorities to prioritise affordable housing and infrastructure before unlocking such flexibilities.

Secondly, I will address childcare, which I think everybody in the Committee agrees is exceptionally important—I know that this is a priority for all of us in the House and the other place. It is also a priority for the Government, and I am happy to say that, since Amendment 290 was tabled, the Chancellor has announced transformative reforms to the funding and delivery of childcare, as part of the Spring Budget. By 2027-28, this Government expect to spend in excess of £8 billion every year on free hours and early education, helping working families with their childcare costs. This represents the single biggest investment in childcare in England ever, and it means that eligible working parents of children from nine months old to their start in primary school will all have 30 hours of free childcare per week. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the Chancellor’s announcement means that it is no longer necessary to try to bolt together the planning system and funding for childcare through the Bill.

I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that guidance for applications for free schools already includes explicit assumptions that any new free schools will include proposals for nurseries. Therefore, education investment in a possible new development will include a nursery, unless there are very strong reasons why this would be inappropriate. So the Government are dealing with the issue of ongoing support for childcare and, at the same time, there is already in guidance the necessity for more nursery places where houses are built.

I turn to infrastructure spending more broadly. New Section 204N(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of kinds of infrastructure, which assists with broadly understanding what the levy might be spent on. But spending is not restricted to any of the listed items: the levy can be spent on any infrastructure that supports the development of an area. This means funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure, provided that this in accordance with the overall aim of the levy, as set out in new Section 204A. To strengthen infrastructure delivery, new Section 204Q requires local authorities to prepare “infrastructure delivery strategies”, which will set out a strategy for delivering local infrastructure and spending levy proceeds.

Where do the infrastructure delivery strategies sit in terms of the local plan process? The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this. What role will they play in relation to NDMPs? It is not clear from the legislation exactly how they fit in with the rest of the planning process, and it is important that either the Bill sets that out or we have guidance elsewhere—for example, in the National Planning Policy Framework—that makes it crystal clear where those strategies sit.

I understand that, and I will write to the noble Baroness to explain this completely. I know that this is confusing because the NPPF has not been agreed, so I understand where she is coming from and I will make sure that we send her a letter.

Turning to Amendment 324, I agree with my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh that the emergency and rescue services should be among the infrastructure providers that are able to receive levy funds from local planning authorities. For this reason, they are already included in the illustrative list of infrastructure in new Section 204N(3), which makes it explicit that levy funds can be applied towards

“facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services”.

We do not provide detailed definitions across all kinds of infrastructure, as this is not necessary. The words used must be given their natural and common-sense meaning—so “infrastructure” too must be given its ordinary meaning. I have stated that it can encompass matters not listed in new Section 204N(3).

I understand that those representing the emergency services are concerned that, without a clear definition of “emergency and rescue services” in primary legislation, the emergency and rescue services will miss out on the levy proceeds, and that they will be overlooked by the local charging authorities. I will provide some more reassurance in this regard. As I previously set out, under new Section 204Q, local authorities will be required to prepare an infrastructure delivery strategy. The Bill allows us to make regulations stipulating that infrastructure providers should be consulted when preparing the infrastructure delivery strategy. I can commit today to including emergency and rescue service providers as a required consultee for the infrastructure delivery strategy through regulations. That will put the emergency services on an equal footing with other infrastructure providers when the local authority is considering its spending plans for the levy.

I do not believe that there is anything in the drafting of the Bill, or in the design of the new infrastructure levy, that will place the emergency services at a disadvantage. However, I reassure the Committee that, if unintended impacts come to light through our early implementation of the levy through the test and learn approach, we can seek to remedy that through the levy regulations and statutory guidance.

There is also the question of allowing spending on priorities other than infrastructure. We recognise that there are circumstances where local authorities may wish to have some flexibility to provide revenue funding towards local priorities, and what their communities want to see, which do not meet the natural definition of infrastructure; for instance, a programme supporting local employment in the construction industry or additional support for childcare. For that reason, the Bill contains powers for the Government to bring forward regulations that would enable local authorities to use levy proceeds in this way for funding wider local priorities.

We have published a technical consultation on the infrastructure levy, which considers how the levy regulations could be taken forward in a way that ensures that we are able to prioritise delivering at least as much affordable housing as under the current system, and to deliver priority infrastructure, which is needed to mitigate the impact of development. We are keen to hear from local authorities, developers and communities, through the consultation, to strike the right balance on this issue. I hope noble Lords agree that these stake- holders have an important voice here, and that the Government should give them an opportunity to speak before making a final decision on how to address the matter in regulations.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Taylor, for proposing Amendments 314 to 316 and 363, which concern the publication of assessments on the infrastructure levy, relating particularly to the impact on public transport, railway restoration and social infrastructure, and on how the new levy compares to the existing community infrastructure levy. As I emphasised previously, the new levy will aim to capture land value uplift at a higher level than the current system of developer contributions. That means that there will be a greater contribution from the developers to strategic infrastructure, such as enhanced public transport routes and new or improved walking and cycling routes, to support the development of an area. National planning policy is clear that new developments should give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements and facilitate access to high-quality public transport where possible. We want to ensure that the new levy works to support those policy aspirations. Under the provisions in new Section 204N, it is clear that infra- structure can also include improvements to local transport infrastructure, such as roads or railways. A local authority could also choose to spend the levy on improving community facilities and similar social infrastructure. It will be up to the local authority to decide what local infrastructure needs it has and to direct its levy funds to those areas.

Infrastructure delivery strategies will provide scrutiny and transparency as to how levy proceeds are spent and will ensure that the relevant infrastructure bodies have the opportunity to input into how levy revenues are spent, alongside their communities. Our technical consultation on the infrastructure levy explores the design and operation of infrastructure delivery strategies further.

On the publication of a comparison with the community infrastructure levy within 120 days of the Act being passed, I note that much of the detailed design of the community infrastructure levy is set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, and the infrastructure levy will be similar in that regard. We are currently consulting on policy questions to inform the design of the regulations and will further consult on the draft regulations once they are prepared. That means that it will take time for a full comparison to be made and for that comparison to be meaningful.

All local authorities are currently required to publish an infrastructure funding statement, setting out the developer contributions they have secured. We intend to maintain similar reporting requirements under the new levy; it will support the development of direct comparisons between the two regimes. Under the test and learn approach, only a small number of local authorities will adopt the levy initially, so that the policy really benefits from the process of iteration. The local authorities will be supported to introduce their levy charging schedules and their infrastructure delivery strategies, and we will assess what further support they may need during the implementation.

I reassure the Committee that the test and learn approach will be conducted with openness and transparency. The Government will be keen to work with a wide range of stakeholders to make sure that the new levy works as intended. I can commit to publishing an evaluation which will allow us to judge the effectiveness of the levy at an appropriate time. The department has already commissioned a scoping study to develop an approach to the evaluation of the planning elements set out in the Bill, which we expect to report on following Royal Assent. The full evaluation, informed by the findings of the scoping study, will then be commissioned. I hope this provides reassurance that the approach to the implementation of the new levy reduces the need for the formal reporting envisaged in this group of amendments, and that I have persuaded the noble Baronesses opposite that the test and learn approach addresses the underlying concerns raised by the amendments.

Amendments 329 and 360, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, raise the important issue of how the Government intend to apply the levy to publicly funded infrastructure, such as the provision of emergency services. I very much agree with my noble friend that it would not make sense for infrastructure that is provided for the benefit of the general public to be charged a levy for providing additional public benefits. New Section 204D(5)(h) in Schedule 11 provides powers to set out levy exemptions or reduced rates in regulations. It is our intention that publicly funded infrastructure will not be subject to the levy, and we are currently exploring this as part of our levy consultation. That would include infrastructure delivered by the emergency services. Even with such an exemption, all development, including publicly funded infrastructure, will be required to deliver the infrastructure that is integral to the functioning of the site. That may include, for instance, sustainable drainage or safe internal road layouts on emergency services sites. We propose to retain the use of planning conditions and a restricted use of Section 106 agreements to secure such matters.

Amendment 360 also seeks to create an exemption for infrastructure provided by the emergency services in the existing developer contributions system. Local authorities may negotiate a Section 106 agreement only where it is necessary in planning terms. For the reasons I have already mentioned, it remains important that the direct impacts of public infrastructure can be addressed, under both the new and existing systems. Local authorities are also able to zero-rate public infrastructure in their community infrastructure levy charging schedules.

Amendment 360 also seeks to make further changes to how the existing system takes account of requests for Section 106 and community infrastructure levy funding from emergency services providers, and to when payments towards infrastructure are made. Issues concerning how the existing developer contributions system works are dealt with in policy and statutory guidance for all other infrastructure providers. We do not say anywhere in primary legislation that, when making decisions about developer contributions, local planning authorities should give particular weight to the representations of a specific infrastructure provider. That would unnecessarily constrain local authorities’ discretion.

However, I am content to put on record that the department will happily engage with my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and representatives of the emergency services to explore how revisions to existing national policy and statutory guidance could address the concerns he raised. I understand that the Housing Minister has already written to him to this effect. While it is not the aim of the Bill to introduce changes to the existing system, I appreciate that it is important that payments under Section 106 and the CIL be made at the appropriate time and that local authorities have the tools to negotiate the timing of infrastructure delivery at the right point. We keep the operation of the existing system under continuous review and my officials will continue to engage with the sector to see if anything else may be needed.

I really appreciate that response, but the emergency services replied to the letter from the Housing Minister with a way forward. They are very concerned that the existing community infrastructure levy and Section 106 system is not working. Although, as the Minister pointed out, emergency services are mentioned in the schedule, the principal concern is how the historic system works, as it will take up to a decade for the new system to come into play. Will the Minister respond to the latest representations, so that we can agree a way forward?

I completely understand my noble friend’s issue and, as I have said, we are very happy to have a meeting to look at what can be done in the existing system. We know what is going on with the proposed system, but I understand the issues and we will meet further on this with the emergency services.

Turning to Amendments 331 and 346, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh for tabling these amendments. I agree that ensuring that development is accompanied by the timely provision of the right infrastructure is important to local communities where development is taking place. However, requiring a full payment of the levy up front would impact the viability of development and result in fewer homes, and therefore fewer affordable homes, being delivered. Large developments can be built out over periods of a decade or more, and it is not necessary for all mitigating infrastructure to be delivered in the early stages of that development.

The viability of development, particularly larger schemes, does not put the developer’s position at risk. The increased costs of—in this case—the infrastructure levy come out of the value of the land: in other words, the landowner, who, at the stroke of a pen in a local authority, has seen their agricultural field, for want of an example, rise from £4,000 or £5,000 an acre to £750,000 an acre. That is where the loss of value will occur—in the simple viability of a large development.

I thank the noble Lord for that. As I said, large developments can take a decade or more to build out and we do not want to build infrastructure, only for it to stand idle for a long time. This would increase costs for developers, reducing the amount of money that can therefore be put towards other infrastructure and affordable housing, without generating additional benefits for the communities. I agree that infrastructure must be delivered in a timely way, but that means neither too early nor too late. I will turn in a moment to the powers in the Bill that will allow this.

Turning to my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh’s Amendment 346, I clarify for the Committee that new Section 204O in Schedule 11 allows for regulations to be made that require local planning authorities to pass levy receipts to specified bodies. These are the powers that enable a proportion of levy receipts to be passed to bodies such as parish councils, thus retaining the ability for a neighbourhood share to be set up under the levy, rather than the spending of funds more generally. I believe that my noble friend raises a wider point here, making sure that levy payments are made in a way that allows infrastructure to be in place before a development is occupied and begins to impact on the capacity of services such as emergency services.

In relation to both amendments, I can reassure the Committee that we already have powers in the Bill that can be used to deliver important infrastructure at the right time. This includes powers in new Section 204R(2), in Schedule 11, to allow levy regulations to require early levy payments, or payments by instalment, if this is considered appropriate by the local authority. We are currently consulting on how these powers should be used.

Furthermore, it will be possible for local authorities to build up a reserve of funds from multiple sites to deliver infrastructure when it is needed, or to borrow against future levy receipts. For the largest, most strategic sites, Section 106 agreements will continue to be used to secure the delivery of infrastructure at an appropriate time, in line with the agreement. On all other sites, infrastructure integral to the design and function of the site will continue to be delivered by the developers.

Moreover, if a local authority requires an additional sum to be held in bond for remedial works, there are powers for it to do so in existing legislation through Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 or, if necessary, through Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Local authorities will continue to be able to use these powers under the levy, in circumstances allowed by regulations, so no new legislation is required to achieve this. I hope I have provided noble Lords with the reassurance that the issues raised can be addressed through the current drafting of the Bill and through the levy regulations.

I move now to Amendments 336, 337, 338, 339, 354 and 355. This group of amendments, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, relate to the preparation, examination and monitoring of infrastructure levy charging schedules. I will begin with Amendment 336, which would require the consideration of the viability of different types of development, including older people’s housing, when setting rates. Delivering housing for older people is important. Both the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department of Health and Social Care provide capital funding to incentivise the supply of housing options available to older people. Our planning rules already mean local authorities must consider the needs of older people when planning for new homes.

However, we recognise that there may be many different types of development undertaken in an area, and that the economics of these developments are different. The Bill already makes provision which enables charging authorities to set different levy rates for different types of development in their infrastructure levy charging schedules, and requires that they have regard to the viability of development when setting rates. When the levy is introduced, local authorities will need to ensure that all types of development remain capable of being delivered. We also have the ability to prescribe what evidence must be taken into account when setting rates. Therefore, viability is already central to the local authority’s considerations on rate setting. It is up to local authorities to find the right balance when setting rates to capture as much value as they can while ensuring that development still comes forward because it is viable.

Furthermore, infrastructure levy charging schedules will be subject to an examination in public to ensure that appropriate care has been taken in setting rates. Amendments 337, 338, 339 and 354 seek to remove this protection. Having an examination in public is an important procedural mechanism. This ensures that people impacted by the rates have the right to be heard when rates are set, that local authorities pay due regard to their stakeholders and that they take all relevant considerations into account when setting rates. The existing community infrastructure levy has the same process for independent scrutiny of proposed rates, and this works well.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, asked what the point of costly charging schedules was. The independent examination should reduce the risk of JR, rather than increase it. We want the procedural system to be fair, transparent, consistent and robust. The examination process will deliver this and will also reduce the likelihood of legal challenges being brought on procedural grounds, as I said.

Lastly, new Section 204Y(1) to be inserted into the Planning Act sets out the instances where the Secretary of State may require a charging authority to review its levy charging schedule. Amendment 355 would limit the circumstances in which the Secretary of State could direct such a review. Reviews are important to provide confidence that the charging schedule remains appropriate or alternatively identifies the need to start a process of revision if the rates are not considered to be effective for securing value. This will be important for both local communities and developers, so that the rates and minimum thresholds that have been set remain appropriate and up to date. Historically, we know that local planning authorities have not always reviewed and updated key documents, such as local plans, in a timely fashion. We also consider it important to retain flexibility to be able to regulate for other future circumstances when it may be necessary to direct a review of a charging schedule to be undertaken.

The levy is a long-term transformation programme, which needs to be able to deal with not just the markets of today but the markets of tomorrow. New development models may come forward, new methods of construction may impact on costs, and new sectors of the economy may appear, which have their own unique challenges. I hope I have persuaded the noble Baroness of why the power to direct reviews is valuable, and how important it is to have this flexibility.

I turn now to Amendments 342, 347, 348, 351 and 352, tabled by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, which relate to how levy funds can be spent. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that the emergency and rescue services are fundamental to the safety and security of our country, as we have heard today. To support appropriate provision alongside new development, the infrastructure levy will be able to be spent on facilities and equipment for emergency and rescue services.

New Section 204Q(11) requires levy regulations to determine the consultation process and procedures that must be followed when a local authority is preparing its infrastructure delivery strategy. This can include which bodies must be consulted in order for charging authorities to determine their infrastructure priorities for the spending of the levy. These matters of detail will be determined through regulations. I agree with noble Lords that it is entirely appropriate that emergency and rescue services should be among the bodies consulted on the infrastructure delivery strategies and should be listed in regulations for that purpose.

An important question is the weight that must be given to representations made by particular bodies, such as the emergency and rescue services, when spending or passing infrastructure levy receipts to another body. Specifying a particular infrastructure body whose representations must be given significant weight in the Bill would suggest that this body should be given preferential treatment over other bodies, such as healthcare, education and highways, which are also fundamental to creating sustainable developments. It is important that the planning authority must ultimately make its own decisions about the allocation of limited resources, taking into account all local needs and preferences, in the round. I hope I can persuade noble Lords that it is better for local authorities to make these decisions themselves than for central government to single out certain interests.

New Section 204Q(6) requires that regulations must make provision for the independent examination of infrastructure delivery strategies, and new Section 204Q(8) allows regulations to determine what the examiner must, may or may not consider, and the procedure that must be followed. This examination will ensure that the charging authority has fulfilled its obligation to consult, and properly taken account of the consultation responses and any national policy or guidance.

Requiring the final strategy to be approved by the infrastructure bodies would add an unnecessary burden to the process and, most critically, would take the decision-making powers away from the local authority. If such a power were granted to the emergency services, it would also be sought by all other infrastructure providers, all of which would be seeking funding. If participants had, in effect, a veto, it would be unlikely that any infrastructure delivery strategy could be agreed and produced in a timely fashion, if at all.

I recognise the importance of a fair process. The development of an infrastructure delivery strategy, combined with its examination to ensure that it has been properly undertaken, is our means of delivering it. I hope I have persuaded noble Lords that this strikes the right balance between empowering a local authority to make appropriate decisions, while ensuring that they are transparent and subject to oversight.

The list of kinds of infrastructure at new Section 204N(3) is intended to be a non-exhaustive list of what is considered to be infrastructure. It is indicative of some of the things that local authorities may like to consider but it is not intended as a checklist or mandatory list. It is far more important that local planning authorities engage with relevant infrastructure-providing bodies about what is needed in their local area.

With regards to passing funds to parish councils, the Government are committed to empowering communities through the planning system. Under the community infrastructure levy, where all or part of a chargeable development is within an area of a parish council, the charging authority must pass 15% of the receipts to the parish council, and this increases to 25% where there is a neighbourhood development plan in place. The levelling up White Paper commits the Government to continuing the neighbourhood portion of CIL as it introduces the new infrastructure levy. This commitment will be achieved under new Section 204O, inserted by Schedule 11, which provides powers for regulations to be made that may require charging authorities to pass levy receipts on to other specified persons. This replicates the existing framework for CIL, set out in Section 216A of the Planning Act 2008, as amended.

It is important that parish councils do not lose out through the introduction of the new infrastructure levy. However, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would represent a significant increase of levy funds compared with the existing system. It is important to emphasise that, in the existing system, Section 106 agreements, for which there is currently no neighbourhood share, secure about 85% of all developer contributions, while CIL secures about 15%. The new infrastructure levy will capture much of what is currently secured through the Section 106 agreements. This means that the total revenue collected through the new infra- structure levy will be much greater than CIL. If we were to set the neighbourhood share of the infrastructure levy at a percentage equal to or higher than that of CIL, funding currently secured through Section 106 would be diverted to parish councils. Such an approach would inevitably result in a decrease in affordable housing and revenue for local authorities’ infrastructure needs.

We are consulting on what proportion of levy proceeds parish councils should expect to receive under the new system when chargeable development takes place in their area, and that will be provided for in regulations. Our position, however, is that the value collected as neighbourhood share should not result in less money being allocated for neighbourhoods than in the existing system.

The noble Baroness is also concerned with the level of flexibility that is afforded to parish councils in how they spend levy receipts. In the Bill, we already have powers which would give more flexibility to parish councils in the levy context, in terms of their spending choices—this is set down in the existing provisions in new Section 204O(3). We can provide in regulations for councils to spend specified amounts of money on other things that are not related to infrastructure and not related to supporting development.

Through regulations, we will ensure that parish councils have flexibility in how the neighbourhood share of the infrastructure levy can be spent. This will enable parish councils to focus on priorities that matter most to communities at the hyper-local scale.

For the reasons I have set out I hope I have provided noble Lords with reassurances on how the levy will be spent.

Before I go on to the government amendments, I will make a couple of points. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, brought up the issue of bus shelter problems in 106 being lost—Section 106 obligations usually have to be used in line with the original intentions as set out in the obligation itself. This can mean that local authorities must return funds if the original purpose is no longer relevant. The levy will answer this—local authorities will have flexibility over how they spend funds when circumstances change and will not have to return the charge.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked how we are going to stop the Secretary of State top-slicing the infrastructure levy. There is a new requirement for local authorities to publish an infra- structure levy strategy—as we have already been saying—setting out their approach to spending the levy. I can assure the noble Baroness that spending will be led by local authorities, with decisions only shaped by national policy—so no top-slicing.

Moving on to the government amendments, the Government recognise that the new infrastructure levy represents a significant change. Amendments 335A and 357A are minor clarifying amendments to the Bill to support this transition. These amendments will allow local authorities currently charging the community infrastructure levy to use those receipts to fund preparation and admin costs for the new levy. Similarly, they will make provision to enable sums obtained from developers via the 106 agreements to be used in connection with the new levy. These amendments therefore make it clear that local planning authorities can use cash collected under the existing developer contributions system to support the administration and set-up costs related to the new levy.

Amendment 335A makes a clarifying amendment to new Section 204Z(1) in Schedule 11 to enable the levy regulations to make provision treating CIL as if it were the infrastructure levy. This can be relied on, for example, to make provision for CIL to be applied to fund the administration costs and set-up costs of the new levy, such as work to develop new charging schedules.

In a similar vein, Amendment 357A amends new Section 204Z1(1)(c) in Schedule 11 of the Bill to make it clear that local authorities will be able to use sums obtained through Section 106 agreements to support the set-up and administrative costs of the new infra- structure levy.

Both these amendments are minor clarifying amendments, as they may express what is arguably implied within existing powers. Together, these amendments are an important part of the Government’s plans to introduce the new infrastructure levy in an effective, transparent and coherent way.

First, I am very grateful for the very lengthy reply the Minister has given us. I listened very carefully to all she said, but could she confirm that the new system, which she referred to as a “long-curve transformation programme”, will actually end up building more affordable homes? That seems to me to be a central requirement of the infrastructure levy. I seek her confirmation that the outcome of all she has just said will be that more affordable homes will be built in this country.

What we have said is that this will deliver no fewer affordable homes. Of course, the number and type of affordable homes that are built will be a local decision. If local authorities want more homes—I suggest that we need more homes in this country—we should be able to deliver more homes.

I thank the Minister from our side for the very detailed response she gave to all the contributions that have been made. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, we have a further group on this, so I am sure we will debate it further in the course of that group. The combination of the lack of clarity around what the new infrastructure levy is going to deliver in affordable housing and the removal of housing targets looks like a terrible contribution. I know the Minister said that this would not mean fewer affordable homes, but the number that have been built in the last few years is woeful. We want that to improve; we want to get more affordable housing out of this. I know we will discuss this again in a subsequent group, but it is really important. I hope we can get some clarification in that group about how this new infrastructure levy system is going to help us deliver the affordable homes that we all know we need.

This is about not just the new infrastructure levy but the whole Bill. We know that where local authorities have local plans, they build more houses. The Bill is there to enable and encourage local authorities to have local plans. It is the combination of all these things within the Bill that should deliver more houses.

Well, my Lords, time certainly flies when you are talking about local government. I pay tribute to the stamina of the many people here who have a background in local government. I also congratulate them because I think this is the first time I have heard a debate on local government where about five people have not popped up, one after the other, and stated that they are a vice-chair of the Local Government Association. Eureka—we seem to have got away from that. I do not know whether the Minister is grateful to the Government Whips’ Office for putting such a compact group of amendments together; maybe it is an efficient way of dealing with this. I pay tribute to her for her stamina, for being on her feet for nearly 50 minutes and for being as detailed as she has been. I think all of us genuinely appreciate that. She deserves lunch really quite soon.

I thank the noble Lords who spoke specifically about my Amendment 290. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I am not going to go into detail on any of the other amendments. What I would like to come back to is the fact that I think all of us who are concerned about the level of provision of childcare services would really appreciate a detailed letter which very explicitly says what is covered, what is completely clear and what may be slightly less clear. We are in a situation where it simply is not working at the moment.

If we are going to get value from the Chancellor’s huge expansion in free childcare services, we have to be sure that we have enough places to put the children in, in the right places. We also need to be completely clear that we need both capital funding, where it is required to ensure that we have new childcare facilities, and funding to actually make it possible for them to be run. Part of that is about ensuring that the fees charged cover the costs and, in most cases, leave a degree of profitability for those services—most of which are private —otherwise they will continue to go out of business. We would be most grateful if we could have a really detailed response on that.

I am sure other noble Lords will follow up on their amendments as well. Again, I thank the Minister for the length and thoroughness of her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 290 withdrawn.