Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. As I was re-elected as a councillor in May, I have a direct interest in the formation of electoral law. As such, it will perhaps be no surprise that I will focus my remarks on some really practical issues.

First, voter registration is currently significantly incomplete, despite the best efforts of elections officers. The Electoral Commission estimates that 8 million people are not registered to vote. In my constituency of Spen Valley, that is estimated to mean 10,000 potential voters unable to vote because they are not registered. This has impacts on our democracy; lack of registration is heavily skewed to those who rent and those who move home regularly. This demographic is also likely to be less well off than the average. The further impact is on the boundaries of constituencies, which are based on numbers of registered electors. The reasons for not registering are many, but they include people not wanting others to know where they live and not trusting the opt-out from the open register to safeguard them from, for instance, a violent ex-partner. The move to an opt-in register is therefore a positive move. Automatic voter registration is welcome, but the practical implementation leaves much to be desired. Where is the timetable for action? Where are the proposed pilots, which are essential if there is to be a move to automatic registration? Can the Minister provide those details before its widescale introduction, and will that occur before the next general election?

The other issues I want to raise are small but important. The first is that of postal votes. Currently, there is no specified timetable for elections officers to send postal ballots to Royal Mail for delivery. Given that, in some local elections, those voting by post may constitute a significant portion of votes cast—between a third and a half, depending on turnout—naming a postal vote day or days will aid both voters and campaigners. Voters will get information on candidates and campaigners can get the information to them in time. Then there is the abuse of election spending limits, for local elections in particular. Literature from a national political party that does not name a local candidate, specific local issues or the party in the locality is not counted towards local election expense limits. In a recent local by-election in Kirklees, where I am a councillor, approximately £4,000-worth of such literature from one political party arrived on voters’ doormats. This is more than double the enforceable election expense limit for that election. It is making a nonsense of spending limits, and I urge the Minister to consider with the Electoral Commission changes to those regulations.

Finally, I will raise a concern about the relative sizes of electorates in local wards—not within a council district, as that is well governed by the local boundary commission. This Bill seeks to improve the representation of people, yet in Birmingham, for instance, the councillor to voter ratio is one to 7,000. In my own area of Kirklees, it is one to 4,700; in Manchester, it is about one to 3,500; and for London boroughs the ratio is about one to 2,500. So in one part of the country the ratio is three times greater than in others. There are serious implications of this disparity. The larger ratio comes with a growing loss of real local representation and the remoteness of those elected in making local decisions. I hope the Minister will reflect on these disparities and how they can be addressed.

Leaseholder Remediation (Building Safety) Bill [HL]

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the terrible Grenfell tragedy exposed serious, deliberate and dangerous building practices that put, and still put, lives at risk. The estimate from the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee is that 3 million people may be affected. There are between 5,900 and 7,400 buildings over 11 metres with unsafe cladding, and the National Audit Office estimates that between 9,000 and 12,000 buildings of 11 metres—or five stories—or more have fire safety defects. Of those with unsafe cladding, the latest government figures show that over 2,200 buildings of 11 metres or more have not even started remediation.

The impact on leaseholders is profound. Inside Housing reported that one in five contemplated suicide when faced with the enormity of the safety scandal. Insurance premiums soared, with some leaseholders paying up to £2,000 for a flat, and the average being 56% higher than those without defects. Service charges and waking watch costs add to the significant financial burden on leaseholders.

Leaseholders are paying a very high price when they have done absolutely nothing wrong. The bricks, mortar and dangerous cladding are not theirs. Others are profiting, or have done, from this scandal: construction companies, contractors and material suppliers. My Private Member’s Bill seeks final and swift justice for the thousands of leaseholders whose lives have been for ever harmed by the scandal of deliberate wrongdoing by others.

The principles underlying the Bill are these. First, leaseholders will not be liable for any costs incurred by remediation of building safety defects. Secondly, leaseholders must not have costs included in their service charges, and any who have already fallen foul of this dubious practice can apply to the First-tier Tribunal for repayment. Thirdly, all leaseholders will be covered by the provisions in the Bill, whatever the height of their building. The Government have always argued that buildings below 11 metres are a much lower risk and so are not covered by the Building Safety Act. However, one leaseholder in a low-rise block has a bill of over £65,000 for remediation. Under the provisions of this Bill, the 1.3 million leaseholders in low-rise flats will also, rightly, be protected. Fourthly, all systemic defects, as well as unsafe planning, are covered by the Bill, and are listed in Clause 3. Those four principles form the bedrock of the Bill.

The second part of the Bill defines liability and, for the first time, includes the manufacturers or suppliers of materials that contributed to a systemic defect. The manufacturers of the highly flammable cladding that contributed to the Grenfell Tower fire have so far escaped liability. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report spells out their culpability, and the police have yet to bring prosecutions. This Bill rights that wrong. The Government have focused their efforts on the removal of unsafe cladding. The failure also to concentrate on other safety defects, such as the lack of fire stopping or compartmentation, has resulted in buildings being deemed safe once cladding has been removed, when they are not.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with getting the work done by setting a clear, legal timeframe for work to be completed. Thousands of leaseholders are living in dangerous buildings nearly 10 years on from the Grenfell fire. This will not do. People deserve much better than the procrastination that has been permitted. The Government’s remediation acceleration plan demonstrates an understanding of the need but is inadequate in its failure to enforce timely action. The Bill radically changes that approach by expecting a remediation plan within 28 days of the Building Safety Regulator confirming that systemic defects exist.

Further, the Government are required to publish a new and more demanding remediation acceleration plan, including target dates for the completion of work. Clause 17 details the timeframe for completion of remediation. Once a plan has been issued, there are 24 months to get the work done and, where defects are identified as being urgent, six months. There are penalties too in the Bill for non-compliant developers, as they will be banned from involvement in any residential building work and from applying for such.

So far, manufacturers of, for example, the ACM cladding that largely contributed to the deaths of 72 people, have avoided financial penalties for their failures, some of which were deliberate. Under Clause 12, those responsible for remediation will be able to recoup costs from manufacturers where the product failed to meet the relevant British standard or European harmonised standard. Such action is long overdue. To protect residents from future building disasters, any new development over 11 metres or five storeys has to hold a developer’s licence from the Building Safety Regulator.

Part 5 of the Bill enhances the rights of leaseholders to vital information about the building and any defects. A protected leaseholder under the Bill will also have new rights to claim against the responsible person for any loss as a result of a systemic defect. An award from the First-tier Tribunal can include damages due to identified losses and any remediation costs already paid by the leaseholder. For too long, leaseholders have been battling for justice without direct support from an identified person. The Bill creates a leaseholder remediation ombudsman to do just that.

The Bill puts the rights of leaseholders first and foremost. For the first time, all buildings, of whatever height, are included. The Bill lays the responsibility and the costs of remediation where they belong: on developers, contractors, and material manufacturers. Leaseholders have new legally enforceable rights and dedicated support where needed. Leaseholders will be fully protected from all remediation costs, with a legal route for recouping those already charged.

I have many to thank for their knowledge and expertise in forming this comprehensive measure: the Property Institute, End Our Cladding Scandal and, in particular, Adam Ball and Mark Fisher.

The Bill demands that justice for leaseholders is at the heart of putting right the scandalous and disastrous behaviour of those responsible. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate and for the wide—in fact, unanimous—support, certainly in principle if not in practice, from all those who have contributed. In what I have said and in the Bill I have deliberately not pointed the finger of responsibility or blame at any particular Government. That is not what this is about. This is about seeking justice for leaseholders. It is a difficult and complicated issue but in the end, what this House and the Government need to do, with support from across the House, is to finally address the issues in favour of the leaseholders.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, very much for the expertise that he has again shared, including what the then Opposition—now the Government—said at the time about the importance of finally nailing this issue.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for raising an issue that I feel very strongly about: that the manufacturers have so far evaded responsibility. If that does not come through the courts, it has to come through Parliament, and we look forward to seeing whether criminal prosecutions are brought.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I like being radical. The challenge she made was that if we do this to the building sector, it will not have the capacity to build the new homes that we need. By the way, Devonshire, which she quoted, described the Bill as “powerful”, and that will do. My challenge back is this: take the car industry. Whenever there is a systemic problem—brakes or something—it calls its cars in, deals with it and faces the consequences, which sometimes means billions of pounds, and it does it quickly. When it comes to people’s homes, 10 years on we are still seeking to protect the building industry and others.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her praise, although I do not think I deserve it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for pointing out some of the legal issues that are now coming. I am just sorry that the Government and the Opposition have been a bit lukewarm in saying, “Yeah, we agree, but we don’t agree”.

All I want is for this issue to be finally dealt with properly in favour of leaseholders. That is what I want, and I shall continue to raise it in this House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Infrastructure Projects: Devolution

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not want to comment specifically on the issues around the Oxford-Cambridge rail link, but that part of the country generates wealth that benefits not only England but the devolved Administrations. So, if the wealth that is generated is shared across the United Kingdom, that would be the case. However, I will respond in more detail to the question on the Barnett formula.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister responded to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, she referred to local leaders. Can she confirm that the reference to “local leaders” is to city and county mayors? If so, where do local councils and local people fit into the decision-making on what could be very disruptive and important infrastructure in their areas?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Devolution and infrastructure reform definitely do not remove the role of local communities. For NSIPs, communities and local authorities continue to have opportunities to engage with projects and participate in the examination process. The Government continue to expect applicants for NSIPs, as well as local planning, to undertake meaningful and proportionate engagement. The reforms are about making engagement more effective, not removing it. The aim is to focus consultation on the issues that matter, avoid unnecessary process, and support better quality applications and decisions.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this quite significant Statement. The Government have suddenly paused the reorganisation plans they started for local government. This is astounding. Proposals to merge councils in Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire, and Essex have been withdrawn. The 14 areas which formed the third tranche of the programme have also been put on hold. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and West Sussex, which were awaiting the Government’s decision, now face further uncertainty for residents, councillors and council officers.

We are told that this new review follows updated legal advice but is also to align the plans for local government with new government priorities. The only area unaffected is Surrey, where the two new unitary authorities have already been established. This has come too late for them.

It was only in June that we were told that this Government

“remain fully committed to the timetable already set out”,—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/26; col. 141WS.]

and that their local government reorganisation programme was

“a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that councils genuinely represent the communities they serve today and stand the test of time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/26; col. 139WS.]

Time has hardly passed, and the programme is paused.

Let us not forget that local elections were postponed. Now, elections in May 2027 will go ahead on existing council boundaries. So much time, not to mention money, was spent drawing together proposals, conducting and responding to consultations nationally and locally, with staffing, governance, finance and service delivery about to be restructured—without, by the way, any guarantee that this would end up saving taxpayers any money or improving services for local people. Are we now being told that it may have all been for nothing because the Government did not think through the legal implications or because the new Prime Minister simply does not fancy it?

What is the estimated total cost of this review, both to national government and to the authorities affected? Do the people making those decisions have any idea how damaging the uncertainty and inconsistency is to many councils, including to staff recruitment and staff morale? Councils are losing large numbers of staff who want certainty on their future, and, for the same reason, cannot recruit replacements.

Your Lordships’ House spent eight days in Committee and two days on Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. The Minister said at Second Reading that the Bill would

“drive the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation”.—[Official Report, 8/12/25; col. 30.]

However, we now have the rewiring of state White Paper to look forward to, which will focus on devolution and local government. Can the Minister clarify, if this new Bill is to deliver devolution, was the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act not devolution at all? As we said at the time, it was not community empowerment. It shifted power away from the local to the regional and to Whitehall—from locally elected councillors to mayors, and from democracy routed in local identities to new managerial, technocratic boundaries. Will this new Bill reverse that direction of travel?

We are hearing the same platitudes from this Government to disguise their lack of long-term vision. Can the Minister tell us exactly what the priorities of the new Prime Minister are, and how they will differ? What certainty can she give to local councils receiving this news? I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Across England, there will be thousands of councillors and council officers who have worked for months, sometimes years, to deliver an effective solution to the Government’s top-down reorganisation diktat. They will have devoted scarce resources in both funding and precious time. Today, they will be despairing. With the stroke of a ministerial pen, all their careful planning has been consigned to the waste bin.

The principle of devolution is the right one. Unfortunately, the Government have conflated devolution with local government reorganisation, and that has resulted in this sorry mess. There are any number of questions that the Minister must answer, given that, in July, she gave an assurance in this Chamber that a decision on the final reorganisation plans for the remaining councils would be made in October.

I am confident that there will be many specific questions about individual councils, so I will restrict my questions to general principles. First, given that the Government’s decision has been made following legal advice, can the Minister publish that advice and provide a summary for us in her response? Will she tell the House when those councils with agreed plans were informed? Some councils had already developed financial planning on the basis of agreed reorganisation. What support will the Government provide for those councils now facing severe financial pressures?

Today’s announcement has left councils and their residents in limbo. The Statement makes it clear that elections for districts will take place next year. That indicates a longer timeframe for reorganisation than a speedy review. Asking people to become councillors for a non-specific period is difficult. Equally, encouraging voter enthusiasm will be more challenging. What are they voting for? How long will it last? Local democracy has been the real loser in all this, with elections cancelled and democratic terms of office extended on a whim.

The process by which the Government determined the parameters of this reorganisation defied the importance and relevance of local communities. For example, new councils were told they had to have a population of at least 300,000, with a maximum of around 500,000—although, of course, one of the new Surrey councils has a population of 700,000. That was stated despite many existing unitary metropolitan councils being smaller than that. For instance, Calderdale, in my own west Yorkshire, has a population of just over 200,000. Many councils in the Manchester mayoral authority have a population of around 300,000 or fewer. That was one reason why communities lost out in this top-down reorganisation.

This is a thorough and embarrassing dog’s breakfast for the Government. It has all stemmed from the flawed notion that the financial crisis facing county councils could be resolved by changing the seats around the table and going for reorganisation, while ignoring the historic community ties around which many councils were created. The Government have much to do to put the “local” back into local government. I look forward to a thorough explanation from the Minister.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords—

Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England is a priority for this Government. Nine years on from the Grenfell tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Helping residents to feel safe in their homes and move on from this issue is crucial work.

The Government are committing £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money to the cost of remediation and the building safety levy is an essential part of the remediation funding package, which will protect leaseholders from costs and ensure that taxpayers are not further burdened. We estimate that the levy needs to raise £3.4 billion, likely over a 10-year period. The revenue target may be adjusted in accordance with the number of buildings requiring remediation and the costs of works.

The levy regulations were made in November 2025 and will come into force on 1 October 2026. The draft amending regulations before the Committee today clarify how the levy will work and are intended to come into force on 1 October. The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floor space in England. It is important to note that developers have known about the levy since February 2021 and its rates since March 2025, providing a significant lead-in period to plan for and incorporate these costs into their projects. It will start being charged on new applications from 1 October 2026.

The 2025 regulations allow for development on previously developed land, often referred to as brownfield land, to benefit from a 50% discount levy rate. This recognises the higher costs of building on this type of land and therefore protects the viability of development on these brownfield sites. My officials received feedback that the definition of previously developed land was not clear. In particular, stakeholders noted that it was not clear whether car parks and other areas of hard standing that would appear previously developed would actually qualify for the discount. Our intention has always been to support development of sites having these kinds of features, so these regulations amend the definition to make it clear where areas of hard standing can qualify. This will better reflect the original policy intention and, hopefully, make it easier for local authorities and developers to understand which sites qualify for the discount, reducing costly and time-consuming disputes. These regulations and the updated guidance provide more information about how this change works.

We also have a small number of minor technical amendments and corrections included in the instrument, including setting clearer time periods for spot checks, clarifying levy information requirements, amending how levy update notices are constituted and clarifying processes for revised levy determinations, refunds, reviews and appeals. We will keep the rates and processes under review and we will report at least every three years. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, first, I wish to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, to her new role. I look forward to working with her; I am sure that we will agree on some occasions, maybe more than most. Let me say right from the beginning that we Liberal Democrats accept the technical changes in this SI, because in effect that is what they are. The amendments are sensible, practical and entirely necessary to prevent any chaos following the levy’s coming into force in October.

The positive changes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has referred are important to remove the loophole of previously developed land. Developers are very good at finding loopholes, so that is important. The spot check and having a strict notification period are also important, as well as separating purpose-built student accommodation from being classed alongside residential. That is positive and we support it.

The Government have set a target of raising £3.4 billion, which is good. However, they are planning to raise this over 10 years. In the first year, the levy raises zero. In the second year, it raises—these are estimates I found from, I think, the Office for Budget Responsibility—just £55 million. By the fifth year, so in 2030-31, it will raise £395 million a year, so over the first five years it will raise just £1 billion of the £3.4 billion that it is estimated to raise. I guess there will be reasons for that, but it is unlikely to raise significant sums in the first couple of years.

Once you have in mind that that is how the funding is going to be and that it will be five years before anything significant comes into the coffers to support remediation, you say to yourself that the Grenfell Tower tragedy was nearly 10 years ago and the Government are still having to find ways of raising sufficient funds to pay for remediation on top of the £5.1 billion, I think, that they have put aside. About 50 major developers have signed up to a scheme to fund it. The Minister has just said that there is no justification for buildings to remain unsafe, but 46% of buildings have not even had work started on them.

Although the levy is important, and I accept the positive changes that are being made, the lack of urgency in all this is worrying, especially if you live as a leaseholder in one of those blighted apartments. I say “blighted” because, if you are a leaseholder waiting for flammable cladding to be removed or safety defects to be remedied, you are stuck in that flat because you cannot sell or remortgage. You are stuck. That is 10 long years, more so when this levy is coming to light.

I have some questions for the Minister. Considering that only £1 billion will be raised in the first five years, who will then fund any of the schemes that would be funded under this levy? How will they be funded? Presumably, nobody is going to say, “You can’t get on and do it because we haven’t got the money coming into the coffers just yet”. Is there any way that the Government could find to accelerate the scheme so that more funding comes in in the first five years? That would give leaseholders some hope. My next question is also about leaseholders. Despite the Government’s best efforts, which I support, some of them are still finding that freeholders and management companies are putting some of the costs on to service charges. How can the Government get the message out to leaseholders that that is not right and that they can go to First-tier Tribunals to challenge it?

I have said all along in this terrible situation that the one group of people who are completely innocent is the leaseholders. They do not even own the bricks and mortar; they lease the space in between the bricks and mortar. They should not be paying anything. Anything that the Government can do to protect them further would be welcome. Having said that, I support what is in the statutory instrument.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to her role on the Front Bench. It is great to see her. I remember the number of times that we stood on opposite sides in the LGA. We move on, and we are still in the same relative position.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations to make corrective amendments to the levy regulations introduced last year. We recognise the need to make buildings safe—it is important—and the role that the levy plays in that, and the need for clarity. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who rightly raised the time it is taking to make these buildings safe and that, in effect, people are trapped within them. Recently, on the Social Housing Bill, we raised the issue of shared ownership, which is in a particularly egregious position.

We welcome some of the changes: the earlier deadline for the authorities responsible for collecting and administering the levy to notify the person who is liable of an information check. But can the Minister confirm that authorities will have the capacity to meet these earlier deadlines? The Government have also made the decision not to take forward an extended exemption threshold for major residential development in the levy regulations. Can the Minister please expand on the rationale behind this decision?

I want to touch on something else, because we have a housing crisis and a shortage of housing, and we are not building enough. The regulations include amending the definition of a previously developed site, whereby 75% of the land has to be previously developed. The SI now clarifies the treatment of fixed-surface type infrastructure and unlawful operations and excludes wholly underground buildings from the definition, as well as underground parts of buildings, from the 75% calculation. As I understand it from the impact assessment, this will result in an increase in charges to developers, as less brownfield land comes within the scope of the 50% discount to the standard rate. I do not know how to interpret that, so I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify it and the level of the increase.

We have said on many occasions, and I believe that there is support across the House, that we should prioritise brownfield development. Ostensibly, this discount prioritises brownfield development. However, given that the levy relates to the value of property, its impact is greater on brownfield sites in urban areas of high value, such as London. While the revised impact assessment suggests that this will be taken off the land value, in practice, much of the additional cost will be factored into the sales price and borne by the purchaser. This is particularly so on brownfield land, where the existing use is obviously not subject to these costs. Indeed, many alternative uses, such as retail, care homes and data centres, would not be subject to this cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their very kind and welcoming comments. It is interesting to reflect on how long we have been working together. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I go back, I think, to the last century.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes, probably.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to be in this position, and I very much look forward to working with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I stress “with” rather than “against”, because I think we come from a strong, shared commitment to all things local government—in particular, serving the people in our communities that we have variously represented. There are some tough times ahead, but I will do my best to address the concerns raised today. Dialogue will be ongoing, of course, particularly given the different legislation that is proposed; that will give us a real opportunity to go into much greater detail than we can probably do today.

Let me respond to the concerns from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about the money, which is, of course, a crucial issue. To reiterate, the Government are committed to remediating buildings as quickly as possible. I have to say that the launch of the levy, which will come in in October, will not affect the pace of remediation. The Treasury has agreed that the necessary expenditure can be made in advance of receipts from the building safety levy rather than slowing remediation to match the profile of the levy receipts. Of course, the Government will report on levy receipts and remediation expenditure in the annual trust statement. I hope that gives the reassurance that the noble Baroness has been looking for.

The remediation of unsafe cladding Bill will deliver on the manifesto commitments to address the pace of the remediation work. Most importantly, it will ensure that those responsible for the building safety crisis pay towards fixing the problem they have caused. We all know that there is further work to do on this. I am grateful for the collaboration that we have had so far from some developers, but I also recognise that there are other avenues to pursue, as encouraged by those developers. We have to make sure that we take on the most reluctant landlords; in particular, we must make sure that they take action and that, if they do not, they face severe sanctions.

I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. This is interesting because I first started working on this when I was in Opposition, going back to 2022, and some of the comments that were brought up today have been a feature throughout. I reassure the noble Lord that we have worked closely with stakeholders and industry to minimise the impact on housing supply. The building industry as a whole is balancing the need to raise the revenue required to make homes safe, and those responsible show a clear recognition that this is an important dynamic on which we need to keep moving to achieve our manifesto commitments. As the noble Lord said, they are ambitious, but there is the will to do it, and the Secretary of State is committed to working on all fronts to move this forward.

The NPPF definition is specifically designed to inform planning policy, whereas the levy regulations set out criteria for developments and local authorities to apply on a site-by-site basis to ascertain qualification for a tax discount. We need to make sure that we do not merge these facts together. The 75% is designed to approximate the NPPF definition for tax purposes. All these matters have been looked at and that will continue to be the case as we move forward. We have a strong ambition around affordable housing running alongside our ambition around remediation. I hope both noble Lords will welcome the importance that we are giving this issue to help take us forward.

To recap, the building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of historic building safety issues, particularly without further burdening residents and leaseholders. The amending regulations laid before the Committee are designed to support this work and make the levy work more efficiently and in accordance with our initial intention to support the redevelopment of existing sites. They are intended to correct drafting and to improve the clarity and consistency of process for developers and local authorities, rather than to alter the underlying policy design of the levy.

To further reassure the noble Lord, consultation with local authorities has been intense. We have made sure that the extra duties funding is in place, helping them to come forward. I am very pleased with the response so far from local authorities, as it is critical that we have that relationship with them so that they can fulfil their responsibilities in this space. As well as the government contribution to funding, we all accept that the development industry must contribute to our work to make buildings safe for those who live in them.

To repeat, the Government are committed to building 1.5 million homes this Parliament to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and unlock growth. This must work in parallel with our commitment to remedying the building safety features of the past. I repeat that we expect developers to make a full contribution to the overall costs of making buildings safe, reflecting the wider benefit they derive from a well-functioning market and the substantial funding and support the Government have already provided and continue to provide for the housing market. With those comments, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, development corporations have been widely welcomed—with one exception—because they have an important function in enabling development decisions that cover a wide area. So, the question for us is not the about principle of development corporations, but whether the Greater Cambridge devco is the most effective vehicle for achieving the purposes set out in the order.

I have a number of criticisms, and the first is about geography, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out. Decisions on local government reorganisation have, so far, specifically excluded a decision on the Cambridge area, yet here is a proposal with boundaries that may not conform to those decisions. This particular order is, therefore, in that regard, premature. Further, the boundaries proposed may actually constrain provision of the much-needed infrastructure.

The next criticism is the locally shared diagnosis that development in the Cambridge area is hampered by inadequate transport, as we have just heard, water resources, which is well known, energy and the affordability of housing. Despite the scale of the proposed development corporation, the solutions to the fundamental infrastructure problems lie with private companies, such as Cambridge Water, and central government to enable the development of much-needed improved transport structures. The Minister said that there will be another £400 million to do all this good work. That is a drop in the ocean compared to what is required in terms of essential infrastructure before all this development can take place. I would like to know whether the Department for Transport, the relevant water company and National Grid have been provided with the funding, either directly or via the regulators, to deliver this essential infrastructure in a timely way.

The third major criticism is that there is no clear rationale or evidence base for removing local plan-making powers from democratically elected councils serving the area. The problem that this creates is enabling development without the consensus of residents or those elected to represent them. The councils involved have a strong record, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to, of successfully making the arguments for growth: 77,000 homes are included in the emerging local plan. Local plans are the bedrock for encouraging agreed change in an area. They consult residents, provide criteria for change and develop a coherent plan, and then councillors debate and agree an outcome. That process is essential if those affected by development are to believe they have had a chance to influence it. To remove plan-making powers and then, disgracefully, planning decisions for all but small developments is democratic vandalism.

All these issues were raised during the consultation, which resulted in 68% of individuals opposing the devco, as well as nearly half of local government organisations. A significant concern of all those who were consulted was the protection of the natural environment. The Government’s response is to commit to establishing what they have described as structured forums to allow direct engagement with residents. The question the Minister must answer is what influence the views from those forums will have on decision-making. If these forums become no more than talking shops, they will rightly be derided.

What is not clear is why the Government have not chosen to use a different model, such as the regional development agency model. The one in Yorkshire with which I was involved enabled significant development across the region by negotiating a strategic plan and providing funding that enabled the private sector to implement it—but, importantly, without bypassing local planning authorities. Can the Minister agree that plan-making powers will be deferred until the draft local plan being developed is adopted, and then only following evidence-based reasons being provided? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to table this regret amendment, with which the Liberal Democrats totally agree.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement. On these Benches, several of us have run unitary councils. We recognise the potential for improved efficiencies and better delivery for residents. However, that must be done on the basis of genuine communities and geographies, at a scale capable of delivering meaningful efficiencies and with the true consent of residents.

The Government set out clear principles at the beginning of this process: a scale of around half a million people, respect for existing boundaries and local consent. Yet looking at the proposals before us today, it is difficult to conclude that those principles have been applied in practice, with populations ranging from nearly 700,000 down to 170,000, the breaking up of existing district councils, and a lack of local support and consent.

Rather, the common thread that seems to run through the proposals is a focus on the needs of largely Labour-run city councils to the detriment of the rest of those counties. The Government have accepted the proposals of Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth and Exeter, among others, despite unanimous opposition from the remaining councils in those areas. Is this just about rescuing badly run Labour councils and facilitating cities shifting their housebuilding to the neighbouring green fields?

I highlight Devon, where the expansion of Exeter and Plymouth is necessitating the break-up of several district councils and will leave what can best be described as an orphan Devon coast and countryside council. This will be a unitary for a population of only 260,000 but spread over a vast rural area, stretching from Kingsbridge on the north coast to Sidmouth on the south coast—a journey of two hours or so by car, and a similar journey from east to west. This is setting up a council to fail. The situation is similar in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire and Nottinghamshire. As my honourable friend in the other place, the shadow Secretary of State, said, this appears to be gerrymandering for political benefit, not delivering for residents.

Ministers have repeatedly stated that councils should meet the standards of transparency, consultation, good governance and sound decision-making. Yet many communities and councils are asking themselves, have the Government applied those standards to themselves in reaching these decisions?

Having run a unitary council with a population of just under 300,000, I know that scale truly matters in key services such as adults’ and children’s social care and services such as highways, which will represent nearly 80% of the expenditure of these new unitary councils. We succeeded because we were well-run, but it was a struggle. No doubt my noble friend Lady Scott will tell Members here about the success of Wiltshire Council, which had the benefit of being substantially larger.

Breaking up counties into smaller units of 300,000 or less will cause significant dis-synergies, particularly following government funding cuts for many councils. How many more councils does the Minister expect will require exceptional financial support as a result of these changes? And that is before the impact of the disruption, as councillors and officers focus on the uphill of reorganisation, exacerbated by the break-up of district councils, rather than doing the day job of focusing on delivering for their residents.

It is particularly striking that these concerns are not confined to this side of the House. In the other place, Liberal Democrat Members have complained about things being “done to” and not “done with”. Even Labour Members themselves have objected to decisions affecting their own areas. Others have questioned why coherent communities were being split, why some selected proposals appeared not to meet the Government’s own criteria and why areas with such strong local identities are being carved up to fit the new structures.

Devolution should be about empowering local communities, not imposing structures from Whitehall. Reorganisation should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. If local government reform is to command public confidence, at the very least it should be transparent, consistent and demonstrably fair.

Can the Minister therefore explain why the Government departed from their original principles on population size, retaining boundaries and financial sustainability? What objective criteria were applied when choosing between competing local proposals? Why were proposals that split established communities or transferred areas into expanded city authorities preferred over alternatives? Have the Government truly examined the impact on the delivery and viability of those essential social care services that support some of the most vulnerable in our communities? What steps will the Government now take to reassure communities that these decisions have been taken in the interests of effective local government rather than political convenience? Can the Minister assure the House that these proposals are financially viable and will not result in the need for more exceptional financial support? Lastly, what will be the impact of the almost inevitable issuance of JRs?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are some deeply worrying elements in the Statement. First, it was issued on the final day before the Commons Recess. A momentous decision of that purport should be the subject of detailed scrutiny but that has been deliberately avoided. Secondly, the announcement has been made by a Minister who then resigned from the Government—it was his final throw of the dice. So this announcement is discredited before the details are even considered.

I trust that the new Minister for Local Government will make it her first task to reconsider the implications of these decisions. It is imperative that Angela Rayner does so, because the decisions that have been announced fail to meet the test of enhancing devolution and democracy or of creating new local authorities that will be financially sustainable. The claim is that creating unitary authorities will put an end to two-tier councils, but, at the same time, the Government intend to create an additional tier of local governance in the shape of mayoral authorities, so two tiers will remain.

The decisions that the Minister made about the boundaries are controversial. Some have described them as gerrymandering, and there seems to be no other explanation in some instances. For example, Devon, which has already been referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has been divided into four authorities—three are relatively small councils in geographical terms, based on Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, each with a population of around 300,000, and the fourth is the rest of rural Devon, with a scattered rural population with no obvious centre—but Gloucestershire is to have one council serving a population of 670,000 people. Can the Minister explain how this huge range of population sizes is consistent with the parameters that were set by the Government or with creating genuine local democracy?

The argument made in the Minister’s Statement is that there will be 3,000 fewer councillors. From my perspective, it is shameful to be proud of reducing the number of elected representatives. Democracy has to enable electors to feel that they have access to local decision-makers and can influence local decisions. Reducing the number of councillors means increasing the size of wards and making councillors more remote from the people they represent, so, on the test of enhancing democracy and enhancing devolution, these decisions have failed.

Then there is the claim that there will be cost savings by having fewer councillors and fewer council officers. That is a claim that government always makes, but it is not supported by facts. For example, in Devon, the previously single social care model for the whole country will be required to divide into four units, and financial benefits of the model will drop sharply. Very large councils of over 400,000 population see costs per head rise and the financial benefits lost, yet the Government have created several councils way above the 400,000-population size.

The Minister may be able to explain the financial argument with details omitted from the Statement, and I look forward to that if she has those details. In the Statement, the Government have admitted that they have failed in the task of making decisions on Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and West Sussex. When will those decisions be made? Meanwhile, the timetable for electing councillors for the new unitaries is set for May next year, while in some cases ward boundaries will have to be reviewed because of the way the boundaries for the new unitaries have been drawn.

Democratic representation is vital for communities. In England, each councillor will on average represent 3,000 electors. In France, that number is nearer 200 and in Germany it is 400. This Statement represents a retrograde step and a lost opportunity to revitalise local democracy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their questions and comments on the local government reorganisation Statement.

I will begin with the timeline that has led us to the decisions announced on 16 July, because it is important that we understand how we have arrived at the place we are now. On 5 February 2025, the Government invited councils in 21 two-tier areas, together with neighbouring small unitary authorities, to develop proposals for local government reorganisation. That is not imposing a model from Whitehall; it is asking councils to come forward with their own proposals. Those proposals were received from councils on 26 September and 28 November 2025. The Government subsequently launched statutory consultations on them on 19 November 2025 and 5 February 2026, which closed on 11 January and 26 March 2026 respectively.

Between May and June 2026, the Government undertook further consultation in East Sussex, Brighton & Hove, and West Sussex to inform the consideration of potential modifications to proposals in those areas. Then, on 26 March 2026, the Secretary of State announced the first tranche of decisions, on Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; and Norfolk and Suffolk.

I will now set out the decisions announced by the Secretary of State on 16 July. These were subject to parliamentary approval. They were announced in Parliament on 16 July. There was another debate on the Monday of that week on the same subject. A Written Ministerial Statement was laid, and of course we are debating the decisions now in this House.

The Government will implement, subject to parliamentary approval, proposals for new unitary councils including: two unitary authorities in Derbyshire and Derby, put forward by Chesterfield, Derby, Erewash and High Peak, including boundary changes; in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Exeter and Plymouth, including boundary changes; in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove, the two- unitary proposal, including boundary changes requested by Brighton & Hove City Council, except for the parish of Falmer; the one-unitary proposal in Gloucestershire; the four-unitary proposal in Hertfordshire, including boundary changes, except for the ward of Arbury; in Kent and Medway, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Dover, Swale and Thanet; in Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Chorley, Lancaster, Preston, Ribble Valley, South Ribble and West Lancashire; in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland, a two-unitary option put forward by Leicester City Council, including boundary changes; in Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, the four-unitary proposal put forward by City of Lincoln Council, including boundary changes and leaving North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unchanged; in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, a two-unitary option put forward by Nottingham City Council, including boundary changes; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, the two-unitary proposal put forward by East Staffordshire, Stafford, Cannock Chase and Stoke-on-Trent; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two-unitary proposal in Worcestershire.

In Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and West Sussex, the Secretary of State has concluded that further time is required before decisions are reached. It is very important that we take the time to make the right decisions for those areas. To respond to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about when those will be made, it will be as soon as possible and no later than October. They will be worked on and decided as soon as possible.

I recognise that not all noble Lords, or all councils, will agree with every decision we have made. These are significant changes and they matter deeply to places. Each proposal has been considered carefully against the published criteria, consultation responses and all other relevant information, including consultation with other government departments. The Government’s responsibility is to take decisions that are sustainable, coherent and in the long-term interests of residents.

The reason for reform is clear. In too many places, two-tier local government is confusing for residents. It divides responsibility, slows decisions, duplicates costs and blurs accountability. Boundaries drawn for a different era too often no longer reflect how people live, work, travel and access services, or how they see their own area. That does not serve residents well, nor does it equip leaders for the future. That is why local government reorganisation is necessary: to create stronger councils with the scale and capacity to deliver better services, support economic growth and provide clearer accountability.

Across these areas, 134 councils will be replaced by 38 new unitary authorities. Across England, once all decisions are taken, we will have cut the number of councils from 317 to a maximum of 173. This will simplify and strengthen local government serving over 20 million people. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about savings, the councils themselves have identified significant potential savings of around £1 billion by the end of 2032. These savings can be reinvested in the front-line services that people rely on.

Of course, local government reorganisation is not without its challenges. Transition has to be handled carefully, particularly where vulnerable residents depend on services such as children’s services, adult care and public health. That is why we are providing over £1 million in funding for every new unitary council, including £900,000 in capacity funding and up to £150,000 of additional funding to support children’s services, adult social care and public health leadership. Pace also matters. Council staff and residents need certainty, so moving forward now allows areas to prepare for elections in May 2027 and for the new councils to take on their responsibilities in 2028.

To respond to some of the other questions—I see that I do not have much time, but I will be as quick as I can—the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to gerrymandering. That is absolutely not the case. I do not know if Members listened to the debate in the other House, but if this was gerrymandering, it did not work, according to some of our Labour Members at that end of the building. The decisions were based absolutely on the merits of the proposals against the six published criteria, consultation responses and other relevant information, and the proposals selected have backing from a range of political parties, not just Labour. Previous decisions did not set a precedent, and I stress that every decision we took was on the basis of the information. All local areas are different, as we often say in this House, and we had to take decisions based on the local circumstances, so they were taken individually and judged on their own merits.

The department ran an independent consultation to assess the proposals against the criteria set out, and the responses were an important factor in the decision-making process. The process is locally led, with councils having been invited to develop proposals for their own areas.

On the size of the local authorities, the 500,000 population figure has always been a guiding principle, not a fixed threshold. Ministers set this out publicly on at least five occasions. Our messaging has been consistent: there may need to be exceptions to ensure that new structures make sense for an area, including to support devolution, and decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.

I make no apologies for the growth focus in some of these decisions. We need to harness the growth that we know can come from every part of our country. We have made our decisions according to the criteria, and some of those are focused on growth. We need to continue with that so that we can get the potential that this country has out to every postcode in the land.

Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council. In my view, this is a developers’ charter. The Government have been hoodwinked into believing that around 5% of all planning applications that currently go to a planning committee for a decision are the basic cause of the lack of housebuilding. There are already over 1 million homes with full planning permission sufficient for the housing needs for at least the next three years. Where are the measures from the Government to stop the delay in building those homes? That is why this is a developers’ charter.

These regulations also fail a devolution test. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, plus the next Prime Minister’s strong support for greater devolution, all point in a direction diametrically opposed to the centralising zeal in these regulations. This is “Whitehall knows best” personified. There will be a national scheme of delegation which treats every part of the country as if it were the same. Planning situations in London are not the same as those in the hills of Yorkshire, but that is what these regulations state and impose on local people. The inadequacies of a centralised diktat are clear when considering Schedule 1 applications, which must be determined by planning officers. These include housing developments of up to nine units, as the Minister has said, but they are often the very applications that can affect neighbouring properties the most. Often these are infill sites, the development of large gardens, or small unallocated sites in the local plan.

That approach has consequences. Officers will be heavily lobbied by both councillors and residents, without there being recourse to an open forum to air the problems and the solutions. Schedule 2 includes all major residential applications and presumably, although it does not say so, big developments like data centres or incinerators. By default, those will be decided by planning officers, as the overriding presumption is that the functions listed in Schedule 2 will be delegated to officers. Public decision-making provides the antidote to allegations of corruption. Currently, the planning committee provides that essential transparency. How will officers’ integrity be protected in this not so very brave new world?

The gateway proposals are a mere sop to democracy. This is the only way to get open and democratic planning decisions made. The gateway consists, as we have heard, of a senior planning officer and a senior councillor deciding—presumably, behind closed doors—whether an application should go to planning committee. They have to consider the strict test in the regulations of whether there are one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area or whether the proposal raises one or more significant planning matters. As we have heard, if the planning officer and senior councillor disagree, by regulation the officer must refuse to take it to committee but decide it instead in the closed confines of the planning office. Further, councillor call-ins of applications are banned. Even though we are in a democracy, “banned” is the word that is used. The weight of residents’ objections is no longer of any consequence as to whether an application is considered in a democratic way.

In a nutshell, these regulations promote secret decision-making and are anti-democratic and centralising in nature. Accusations of nimbyism were thrown at my colleague, Gideon Amos MP, by the Secretary of State. It simply illustrates the paucity of the Government’s proposals when they have to resort to bullying slogans.

Liberal Democrats will support the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, if he decides to call a vote. A fatal Motion to stop these dreadful regulations is the Liberal Democrat preference, but we are aware that the Conservative Benches have a policy of not supporting such Motions, which significantly reduces the chance of success. However, we urge creative thinking by Liberal Democrats on councils to find workable ways within the regulations for transparent and democratic decision-making.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and strongly expressed contributions to this debate. I understand why those points have been made.

I shall pick out some of the issues that have been raised. I think all noble Lords who spoke raised the issue of why the reform of planning committees is necessary. I know that that was done in a way that understands that we could not completely avoid changing planning; I picked up that nuance from noble Lords’ comments. Of course we recognise the important role that planning committees have in ensuring local democratic oversight, and we continue to believe that they will play a crucial role in planning decision-making in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, rightly pointed out, about 4% of applications actually go to committee now.

We have seen across the country an uneven postcode lottery, such that applicants do not get consistency in their decision-making. We have made a raft of changes through our reforms to planning, including introducing a new system to bring forward local plans quicker; we have consulted on a new, more rules-based national planning policy framework; and we are ensuring that councils have the resources they need to run a good planning service. It is vital that, in exercising democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible. They should not revisit the same decisions but focus on those applications that really require member input.

The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady Pinnock, both referred to allegations of corruption in the planning process. I know that chairs of planning do get accused of this, but I never saw a brown envelope in 30 years of being in local government. I understand why those accusations are made, usually by people after a decision goes against them. The Government want to make sure that skilled planning officers in local authorities have the right level of trust and empowerment, allowing them to resolve more applications more quickly in the service of residents and businesses.

Most noble Lords who spoke also referred to the loss of local democracy. The Government really believe that the best way for councillors and communities to engage in the development proposed for their area is through the local plan process. I know that all those in this Chamber who have been local councillors will understand that that is the real way to influence the planning that goes ahead in your local area.

The changes we are making through the national scheme of delegation will support the plan-led system. They ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, not revisiting decisions already considered through the local plan process and instead focusing on applications that require that vital member input. Where controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors will, of course, still play a key role in representing the voice of their communities. Importantly, we are not changing consultation rules—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am really sorry to interrupt. It was not clear when I read the regulations, but is the Minister suggesting that any allocated site within the local plan will, per se, be an officer’s decision, not in principle but in detail as well?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

They are subject to the gateway test, as I set out at the beginning of the debate. Local people will still be able to make representations. Regardless of who the decision-maker is, where those representations relate to the planning merits, they must be taken into account. As Members will know, planning officers have to set out their reasons for either approving or not approving a planning recommendation.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked in particular about reserved matters. We recognise that in some cases reserved matters approval applications can relate to large-scale phased development taking place over many years: 20 or 30 years in some cases. While the principle of development will have been agreed at outline planning permission in these cases, each reserved matters application could still represent substantial major development in its own right—I think that is the question the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was asking me—and in some cases that might mean that committee scrutiny is appropriate.

We have therefore categorised reserved matters applications in terms of the size of the related outline permission. Where they relate to a large outline planning permission—over 500 dwellings or 50,000 square metres of floorspace—they will fall into Schedule 2. This means that, where councils think it is necessary, they could be subject to the gateway test and be referred to committee. Where the outline permission does not meet that threshold, the reserved matters application will be in Schedule 1 and always delegated to an officer.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked whether every Schedule 2 application needs to be considered for referral. Regulations do not require every Schedule 2 application to go through the gateway test. It will be open to local planning authorities to triage their Schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them, so that only certain Schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. For example, they may want to provide guidance on what is likely—this was a question the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked—to be considered a significant economic, social or environmental issue in their area. Local authorities can do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, asked specifically about the size of committees. We consulted initially on setting the cap on the size of a planning committee at 11 members. Having listened to feedback, we have now raised the limit to 13 members, recognising that some councils may be represented by members from multiple political parties. Where that is the case, we want to ensure that committees can accommodate this. However, that is a maximum and we continue to encourage councils to have a smaller number where appropriate. We have seen examples of sprawling committees having unruly debates that do not get anywhere, where decisions get delayed and, in some cases, are not taken at all. The intention behind introducing a cap is to allow for a more focused debate, which I believe will result in quicker and more robust decisions.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton, Lady O’Neill and Lady Pinnock, all raised the issue of call-in powers. I understand the concerns about that but, under Schedule 2, local planning authorities can make their own rules on how they triage these applications. This could include, if they deemed it appropriate, a route for ward members to refer Schedule 2 applications to the gateway test. But ultimately, they can be taken to committee only if they pass the gateway test.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred to my right honourable friend the Member for Makerfield, who is indeed a great champion of devolution. I look forward to working with him on that. He is also a great champion of growth and housing, and the infrastructure that supports them. I am sure that in his role in Manchester, he will have felt as frustrated as I did, as a council leader, with unnecessary delays in the planning system, so I am sure he will be working to ensure that we can make our planning system more efficient and speedier.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me how much difference these changes will make to the delivery of housing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this as well. Streamlining the planning committee process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications under Schedule 1. It will therefore speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up that important officer time to focus on larger applications, which will have a real impact on our goal to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but does the Minister accept that, often, delays in planning applications are caused by the developer when they do not provide all the evidence they are required to provide, say on highways? I will give her an example. There was an application where I live for 300 homes on an allocated site, so that was acceptable, but the highways submission referred to a site that the developer was undertaking 50 miles away. It referenced roads and supermarkets that did not exist, so the delay was caused by the developer. That is not unusual in my experience, so when are the Government going to tackle the delays caused by developers’ inadequate applications?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I suggest to the noble Baroness that freeing up some of the time of our experienced planners will give them the opportunity to go back to developers and challenge information like that when it is not adequate. The fact that there can be dialogue between the planning officers and the developers will definitely speed the process up.

In conclusion, I remind noble Lords what the regulations are seeking to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision-making, so that the housing and growth which local communities want and need can be delivered more quickly.

Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I repeat my interest, though it is not so specific, of being a councillor, but not on one of the authorities affected. This is an entirely sensible change to make. I have a couple of questions about councils’ retention policies for details. Clearly, the strategic decisions will be retained for ever, but all councils have a policy of ridding themselves of mounds of paperwork, because it is very costly to retain them. I would like to know from the Minister about councils’ retention policies. Given that we are now in a digital age, where retaining such documents is much easier, although still with a cost, have councils had to reconsider their retention policies and what does that mean in practice? For example, there is a seven-year rule for a lot of decisions made by councils, after which material can be disposed of. Clearly, that will not apply to big contractual and budget decisions but, given the nature of this SI, it would be helpful if retention policies for councils’ documents and transactions were universal.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I need to declare again that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although I do not believe we will be impacted by these changes at the moment. At the outset, I make clear that we understand the practical problems that the Government are seeking to address through this instrument. It is sensible that, where local government reorganisation is taking place, there should be safeguards to prevent outgoing authorities from making significant financial commitments that could bind or disadvantage successor councils. The purpose of the Section 24 framework is therefore understandable.

However, while this measure may appear technical, it raises wider issues and questions about the Government’s management of local government reorganisation and the haste with which that programme has been pursued. We are being asked to amend legislation because the existing framework, left untouched for nearly two decades, no longer works in practice. One is bound to ask why this issue was not identified earlier as part of the Government’s work on local government restructuring. Given their determination to accelerate structural reorganisation across large parts of England, what other unforeseen consequences will arise as the process goes through?

Time and again, we are told that these changes to local government restructuring will deliver efficiencies, stronger strategic leadership and better services, yet councils continue to raise concerns about complexity, cost and disruption. Against that backdrop, this statutory instrument feels less like a routine technical adjustment and more like another example of the Government being forced to amend machinery when the train is already moving.

I am also interested in the Government’s decision not to review the financial thresholds. Section 29 provides the power to amend those thresholds, yet, while the aggregation date is being updated from 2006 to 2025, the thresholds of £100,000 and £1 million remain unchanged. There is a significant difference in real terms between the value of £1 million now and its value in 2006. Given that this problem arises because a fixed date was used in the previous legislation, why are we again using a fixed date in these changes to the legislation, rather than one that flexes, for example, with the vesting date of the councils concerned? There is also a question of consultation. The Government refer to discussions with Surrey County Council and other sector experts. It would be helpful to know more about the extent of that engagement.

None of these questions necessarily leads one to oppose the instrument, but they are relevant because this SI is being presented as a practical fix to a problem that has arisen during implementation. Parliament is entitled to understand how that problem emerged and whether similar issues may yet arise elsewhere that maybe should have been thought of earlier. Good government is not simply about having a destination in mind but about ensuring that the route has been properly planned —a comment frequently made by one of the Minister’s noble friends about HS2.

I will also raise a broader issue relating to the Government’s programme of local government reorganisation and devolution. Ministers have repeatedly presented this as a coherent national plan yet, from the outside, it looks increasingly like a programme that is being rewritten as it goes along. Timetables have shifted and elections have been postponed and, in some cases, restored. Local authorities remain uncertain about the final structures that they are expected to implement. That is simply not good enough. This issue matters because we are not discussing an administrative exercise; we are discussing the democratic structures through which millions of people are represented. Elections are not an inconvenience to be moved around whenever they become awkward for government timetables. They are the foundation of democratic accountability.

The Government originally announced in December 2024 that six areas would join the devolution priority programme, with new mayoral institutions expected to follow at pace. Yet mayoral elections that were due to take place in 2026 have been pushed back in several areas until 2028, which I understand is also the date of the mayoral elections of the non-devolution priority programme. We therefore find ourselves in an extraordinary position where the Government are delaying democratic mandates because their own reorganisation programme has failed to keep pace with its promises.

Considering this, and given the increasingly fluid political situation nationally, including widespread speculation about the future direction of government and a new Prime Minister on the horizon—the most likely contender has strong views on devolution—does the current timetable for local government reorganisation and mayoral devolution remain intact? I understand if the Minister might need to write to me after 16 July.

Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Baroness Pinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. I am afraid I am going to break the harmony. The Minister will recall our debates on the previous legislation that my noble friend Lord Lansley rehearsed. I go back to the time I was first elected to the other place—on the same day as my noble friend—in 1997, when the Labour Government introduced regional planning and a regional spatial strategy. I ask the same question now that I asked then: where will the voice of rural areas be heard? Which space will rural areas be occupying? The population of North Yorkshire is 11% of the total population of the region of Yorkshire and the Humber, and yet, with the replacement of districts and boroughs with a combined authority and a mayor, I would say that the rural areas have lost their voice. Over the years of the previous Labour Government—perhaps the next Prime Minister was quite a dominant part of that— I saw that the rural voice was pretty much extinct.

To give an example of why it is important that we consider the rural voice, there is a trend of building four-bedroom or five-bedroom homes, whereas in rural areas what we really need are one-bedroom or two-bedroom homes. Obviously, it is not necessarily of interest to developers to build that type of housing stock. The question then arises: what consultation will there be when these spatial strategies come out?

I have been looking at the pages on North Yorkshire and the surrounding area—York, East Riding and Hull. They have produced a spatial framework looking ahead to 2035 to 2050. I am aware of rural house prices being higher but, until I read that framework report, I was not aware that urban house prices in parts of North Yorkshire and Hull are higher. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that the incomes are predominantly lower in these areas, so there is the challenge of lower wages and higher house prices.

I would like to ask two questions. What consultation will there be, both at national level and at a more strategic level and how, in that consultation, will the rural voice be heard? As we now have a Mayor of York and North Yorkshire—I do not see mayors mentioned, but there must be an answer of which I am not aware —what will the relationship of the mayor be to producing answers to a spatial plan?

I echo my noble friend Lord Lansley’s request that the Government publish the responses to the National Planning Policy Framework. An underlying concern in all of this is that we do not develop areas on the functional flood plain of zone 3b.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my relevant interest as a councillor on a met council that will clearly be affected by these changes.

On the changes to the development of strategic plans, during the course of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill I raised concerns not about the benefits of a strategic plan, which covers a wider area than a local planning authority, but about the way it is to be developed. This comes to the fore again in this instance.

My first query is not what organisation will be responsible for the plan but who will be responsible for the plan. Paragraph 5.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum references a combination of principal authorities and combined authorities. One of my concerns is that these cover widely differing geographic and population sizes. For example, West Yorkshire Combined Authority covers 2.5 million people, whereas the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, with a mayor, has just a million people. There is a big disparity, which will have an impact on how a wider strategic look at development across an area is considered. It also has an impact on the engagement and involvement of locally elected members and residents who will be affected by the development of the strategic plan. So that is my first concern: who will do it? The Explanatory Memorandum talks about a strategic planning board but, if it is as undemocratic as the combined authority, I would have real concerns.

I will say a bit more about the “who”. We learned from the devolution Bill that, in combined authorities, mayors will be able to appoint up to nine or 10 people —the number escapes me—who will be responsible for different areas of the combined authority and the responsibilities of the mayor. Perhaps the Minister can put me right if I am wrong, but my assumption is that those relevant people—such as those in charge of transport, planning and infrastructure—would be part of the decision-making process and of this strategic planning board. I like democracy, and I am concerned that the plan will be created without due consideration of locally elected people, apart from the mayor—who is just one among many. There is a lack of accountability to local residents who will be directly affected by any plan that is created. I can tell noble Lords, from long experience, that planning is one of the issues that really gets residents concerned and involved, opposing planning decisions where necessary. That is a big area that I am concerned about.

My second concern is this. In the current fairly febrile and volatile nature of our politics, there is clearly a possibility of a significant change of political leadership in these combined authorities—there already was last year. If there is a change of political leadership and the new leadership wants to significantly change the strategic development plan, is that possible?

My third question is about local plans that local planning authorities and councils have already agreed. They potentially have a 15-year lifespan, although they have to be reviewed and updated every five years. Nevertheless, the basic plan and the policies that underpin it are determined. How does a strategic development plan sit with that if they are already in existence? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a similar question. Which one will override the other in this instance?

The fourth issue that I want to understand a bit better is the examination of an SDS. We have here at paragraph 5.7 that the Lord Chancellor will make these rules. But hang on, is that not something that should be determined, for instance, in this sort of forum—that these will be the rules that will determine how an SDS will be examined? To not have that openly discussed, debated and agreed puts a big question mark in my mind about it. When local plans are examined and inspected, yes the planning inspector is appointed by the Government and there are opportunities for representations by those concerned about particular elements of the plan, but that does not seem to be what is being suggested in the brief mention here or by what the Minister said.

Finally, the Minister said that local planning authorities must have regard to—that is a standard planning phrase—and be in general conformity to this. Presumably, that means that local planning authorities and local planning committees can, if they have good, sound reason, disregard the decisions that are made at a strategic development plan level. If not, I do not know why we have local democracy.

Although I am in favour of this and was in favour of the previous iteration of strategic development, at a regional level—it is very helpful to have a wide scheme—there are a lot of questions around how this will operate and who will make the decisions. I hope the Minister can put my mind at ease.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before I start, I declare an interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, which will no doubt at some point be affected by this statutory instrument.

At the outset, we accept the general principle that consequential amendments are a necessary feature of major legislative reform. But, as we debated on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we remain concerned with the increasing centralisation of planning decisions— I think that was something that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised. Strategic planning appears to be part of that strategy: moving decisions away from local councils and local people who know their area best.

We agree with the Government that we need to get Britain building. We are not building enough homes, infrastructure takes too long and costs are too high, and that will require a simpler and streamlined planning system that is clearer and more consistent. The recently released Savills report on housebuilding, which forecasts that only 839,000 houses will be built in the five years of the Labour Government, compared to the target of 1.5 million, just highlights that the system is not working.