My Lords, I first declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward a purpose Clause which, as we have said, allows us to focus on the Government’s stated intent, specifically its overarching vision to enable housebuilding and support the development of critical infrastructure.

While we welcome the Amendment, we on these Benches believe it can and must be strengthened. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but as things currently stand, that target is undeliverable. The Bill in its present form does little to change that fundamental reality; it does not move the dial in enhancing development across the country.

In 2019, the Conservative Party pledged to deliver 1 million additional homes over the course of that Parliament. By 2024, before the General Election, we delivered on that promise. If this legislation is truly intended to unlock housebuilding, then that ambition must be explicit in the purpose of this clause. Only by doing so can we measure the Bill’s effectiveness against the Government’s target and hold them to account, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. That is precisely why I have tabled an amendment to Amendment 2, to include the Government’s goal of delivering 1.5 million homes in the Bill.

In this House, we are united in the view that this country needs more homes. Housing unlocks opportunity, enables labour market mobility, allows young people to move forward with their lives and removes the key barrier to productivity. However, quantity must be matched by quality. New homes must be well designed and sensitive to local character, and I trust the Minister will agree with that point.

If the Bill is the Government’s legislative vehicle for delivering this, then that ambition must be stated clearly and unambiguously. We must support the Government’s stated aim, but the ambition must be backed by a credible plan, meaningful partnerships and, as we have heard, the active involvement of local communities.

This brings me to the principle of localism and community empowerment. We welcome the inclusion of the engagement under paragraph (d) of the purpose clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. As we have heard, localism matters, not only as a democratic principle but as a practical necessity. We must build the right homes in the right places while preserving our community cohesion.

That is why we brought forward the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, to improve the consenting process and strengthen local control, giving communities the power to shape their own development priorities. That Act made its purpose clear: local democracy matters. When people can see the shape and benefit of development, whether through affordable homes, infrastructure improvements or environmental safeguards, public engagement grows and delivery becomes more achievable.

Part 2 of that Act sought to empower communities to make local decisions for local people. That was our approach. We did not simply talk about localism; we legislated for it. That is why we support paragraph (d), which rightly promotes greater community acceptability. Part 1 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act was guided by a clear set of missions, ambitions to build and level up, which were explicitly stated in the chapter’s title. We acted on those missions. I ask the Minister: when was the last time we heard any mention of her Government’s missions? Do they have any? In our view, this epitomises the lack of cohesion in the Government’s approach. A purpose clause can help the Government focus on their plans by clearly articulating the Bill’s rationale and its ambitions, something that is essential if the legislation is to succeed. A purpose clause will help the Minister remain mission driven.

Success will be measured not just by how many homes are built but also by where they are built. On this side of the House, we are deeply concerned that the current model of strategic planning is being used to displace urban housing need into rural areas. This is just misguided and unfair, especially given the steep housing targets now being placed on rural authorities. We must protect the unique character of our historic villages and ensure the homes we need are built where the real demand lies. I urge the Minister to think again and reconsider the urban/rural balance of housing targets. We support mandatory targets, but they must be the right targets in the right places.

The Bill is not just about housing; it also quite rightly covers critical infrastructure, key to improving the supply side of our economy. When the current Chancellor took office, she made a political choice to cancel a number of infrastructure projects that would have strengthened this economy. Instead, she redirected funding towards public sector pay. We believe that this decision revealed her priorities and underlines the need for a clear, long-term vision in this country for infrastructure.

Finally, subsection (c) of the proposed new purpose clause seeks to ensure that the Bill supports nature recovery through more effective development and restoration. This is particularly relevant to Part 3 of the Bill, which has prompted widespread concern. A remarkably broad coalition, including the National Trust, the NFU, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts, the CLA and the CPRE, have voiced serious reservations. Even the potential beneficiaries of these reforms have expressed unease. Part 3 risks weakening vital environmental protections at a time when we should be strengthening them. Rather than addressing what is not working, it introduces new uncertainties and, potentially, new problems. The proposed nature recovery fund must not become a vehicle for administrative overheads, or a centralised pot disconnected from local needs. Yet, as drafted, there is no guarantee that the money will remain local, no clear commitment to green infrastructure and no adherence to the mitigation hierarchy—these are serious omissions.

Moreover, environmental delivery plans are capped at just 10 years. Many habitats and species cannot simply be moved or recreated in such a short timescale. We also risk treating irreplaceable natural capital as disposable. Even the Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, has been clear: these proposals would represent a regression in the protections established by the Environmental Act. It says that

“aiming to improve environmental outcomes overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species”.

That is the crux of the matter: laudable intentions are just not enough. Part 3 stands in direct contradiction to subsection (c) of the proposed new purpose clause. Additionally, we on these Benches are not clear what problem Part 3 is trying to fix. Instead, it will implement more procedures, structures and processes, without pinpointing the issues it seeks to solve.

In Committee, we will we raise several vital issues to protect our environment, to unlock housebuilding and to enhance infrastructure. I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords as we work our way through the Bill and consider ways to improve it. I beg to move.