Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Order laid before the House on 4 June be approved.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 sets out that the Secretary of State may designate an urban development area where they are of the opinion that it is expedient and in the national interest, and following a public consultation. Between 4 February and 1 April 2026, the Government held a public consultation on establishing the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation to promote ambitious, high-quality and sustainable growth, and unlock the full potential of Greater Cambridge for the benefit of its communities and the country as a whole. I am grateful to all those who took time to engage and provide thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Consultation respondents were clear that Greater Cambridge faces increasingly complex challenges relating to infrastructure provision and the supply of affordable housing. This is having a detrimental effect on quality of life and holding back the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy.

The Government believe that these challenges cannot be met by incremental change alone. Delivering nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge requires a bold, long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered. The Government consider that establishing a centrally led development corporation is the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence.

To show the Government’s commitment to fulfilling the full potential of the region, since publishing the consultation the Chancellor has announced a further £400 million of funding for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, doubling the £400 million announced in October 2025.

Once established, the boundary of the development corporation aligns with the combined administrative boundary of Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. This will enable the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation to deliver on its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

As we set out in the consultation, the development area captures the core functional geography of the Cambridge economy, enabling a holistic approach to growth and infrastructure delivery. It will enable coherent planning across a wide area, strategic land assembly and land value capture to fund infrastructure. However, the success of the development corporation will also of course depend on strong partnership and proactive engagement with neighbouring authorities, and transport and utility providers beyond its boundary.

Although the development corporation will predominantly focus on its designated development area, it will also have influence beyond its formal boundary. This includes the ability to acquire land outside its development area to enable it to meet its objectives. The development corporation will bring a combination of powers, financing and national influence beyond what is available to existing local organisations. The development corporation will provide clarity and certainty through a clear vision for place and a stable governance framework.

The development corporation is intended as a joint national and local endeavour, combining local insight and input from local democratically elected representatives with national leadership, powers and investment. It will have direct access to central government and the ability to convene and co-ordinate partners around shared priorities. The democratically elected local leaders from Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council, and the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will be invited to join the board.

The Government also recognise that resident voices from across Greater Cambridge will form an integral part of the joint local and national endeavour in shaping the area’s future. The Government will therefore ask the development corporation to create structured forums for engagement that reflect the diversity of places and lived experiences across the region and serve as an exemplar of innovative, transparent, continuous and deep engagement. In short, it will provide Greater Cambridge with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable, infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country.

This establishment order will establish the GCDC as an entity, upon which it will be granted automatic infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers. My officials are now preparing the powers and functions order, a negative statutory instrument that is due later this year, which will equip the GCDC with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications for strategic development. Prior to the point at which we define the strategic sites, the development corporation will use minimum thresholds as a proxy to provide a clear and proportionate mechanism to focus the development corporation’s resources on sites of strategic importance. The development corporation will also take on plan-making powers, but it is anticipated that this will be once the draft local plan has been adopted, subject to public examination.

This combination of powers will provide Greater Cambridge with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable, infrastructure-first growth. The model will be an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, setting the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country, delivering the good growth that this Government support.

To conclude, this order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation and set out the boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will be focused on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth in its boundary, and work collaboratively with councils both within and bordering the development area, transport bodies and utility providers, to help supercharge growth and unlock development opportunities. It will support the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and business and laboratory space.

I extend my thanks to the local leaders and their councils for their hard work and for their ongoing collaboration in delivering nationally significant growth in Greater Cambridge. I also thank the Cambridge Growth Company, under the leadership of Peter Freeman, for its ongoing work in Cambridge that has helped unlock planning applications for over 9,000 homes and 528,000 square metres of commercial space. While I am standing at the Dispatch Box, I also thank my noble friend Lord Vallance, who is standing down from the Front Bench but has made a huge contribution to the development of the OxCam arc in his time as a Minister. I am very grateful to him for that work.

I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the order. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a very interesting debate on the future of Cambridgeshire and the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his contribution to Cambridge. We had a visit there and I could see his involvement in how Cambridge is developing. I thank my noble friend Lord Smith for setting out the benefit to the whole UK economy of the growth and innovation that is taking place in Cambridgeshire and how important it is to continue investing in that—not just for the local area but for a national purpose. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for welcoming the development corporation approach to these major growth areas.

All the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, with her slightly negative perspective on the development corporation, were made in the 1940s and 1950s about the development corporation for my town. We need the growth that Cambridge offers. The Green Party may want our country to stand still, but this Government will not let that happen. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, as usual, for her thoughtful comments about the engagement of local people in this project.

I start with the boundary issues, which are the subject of the regret amendment and are important. The boundary proposed for the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation covers a broad geography which will enhance the ability to maximise funding and enable land value capture, increasing the viability of strategic infrastructure projects. The boundary aligns with the existing boundaries of South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council, simplifying governance arrangements and allowing the development corporation to support the emerging local plan. This boundary is considered of a suitable scale to allow the development corporation to respond flexibly and adapt to the emerging constraints within Greater Cambridge.

The Government recognise that the boundary does not always align with the location of essential strategic infrastructure. This will require the development corporation to build strong relationships and carry out proactive engagement with neighbouring authorities and transport and utility providers beyond its boundary. The example the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave of mass rapid transit between Huntington and Cambridge is very relevant here. The development corporation will also hold influence beyond its boundary. This could even include acquiring land outside the boundary, so long as it is in line with its functions and is deemed necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the golden triangle. I am very aware of that—my home town sits in the middle of it. The whole area is very important for the UK economy.

Moving on to planning powers, the development corporation will be granted development management powers for sites of strategic importance. We will be defining that through the function and powers SI. If an application exceeds the proposed threshold set out in the consultation but is not deemed to be strategic, it is expected that the development corporation will delegate decision-making to the Greater Cambridge shared planning service to determine the application in the usual way. As a result, we expect the vast majority of planning applications to continue to be determined by the existing planning service. Plan-making powers will be essential to developing that long-term spatial vision for Greater Cambridge that delivers nationally significant growth. The Government are clear that the plan-led approach must remain the cornerstone of the planning system.

Laying the functions order later in the year gives us time to build a planning service capable of delivering its objectives. The development corporation will be granted development management powers once the statutory instrument is approved, but the intention is that a phased approach will be taken to the exercising of plan-making powers, and that those exercising the powers will be limited by Secretary of State direction. We anticipate this direction being lifted once the draft local plan has been adopted, subject to the public examination. The Secretary of State may choose to lift it sooner if, for example, it becomes apparent that the draft local plan would not deliver development at the scale and pace necessary.

I was asked some questions by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Jamieson, on the scope of the planning powers for the development corporation. As a proxy for a definition of strategic sites, the development corporation will use the following minimum thresholds to provide certainty about the sites it intends to examine for their strategic importance with a view to exercising its development management responsibilities. This will include all sites proposed with a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats, 5,000 square metres of floor space for all other development, and an infrastructure development which occupies more than 1 hectare of land.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about the impact of local government reorganisation on this programme. The development corporation’s boundary did not pre-empt or prejudice the recent consultation on local government reorganisation, which is a fundamental change. Given the significance of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough for national economic growth, it is important that we take the time to get this right. We will make a decision by October this year at the very latest. We are still committed to the existing timetable, with elections to new authorities in May 2027 and a “go live” date in April 2028. The boundary of the development corporation will be kept under review to ensure that it continues to meet its objectives. Any such review could also take into consideration the new administrative boundaries resulting from local government reorganisation if that is necessary.

A number of points were made about water. Water is a key issue in the whole of the east of England, as we know, but particularly in the Cambridgeshire area. My noble friend Lord Smith rightly raised the new Fens reservoir. No new reservoirs were built for 30 years in this country. That has caused some of the problems we are now experiencing, so we want to get on with that as quickly as possible. The Government are committed to ensuring adequate water supply and wastewater capacity to support sustainable growth in Greater Cambridge and to protect the natural environment. We have very rare chalk streams in this area, which we must look after.

No new homes in Cambridge are currently blocked due to water scarcity issues. Our work with the advisory water scarcity group has unblocked planning applications totalling over 9,000 homes and over 500,000 square metres. In December 2024, the Environment Agency lifted its objections to remaining blocked development following improvements in Cambridge’s water resource management plan and progress made by the water scarcity group. In addition, the work undertaken by the Government’s water delivery taskforce to resolve wastewater constraints means that over 18,000 homes across East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the home counties are now a step closer to being built.

The Government will continue to work closely with partners to ensure that water scarcity is not a constraint on development in Cambridge. The development corporation will have powers to directly plan, fund and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration, including utilities such as water. This includes the ability to lay connecting infrastructure for water mains and sewerage on sites delivered by the development corporation. There will be an opportunity for the development corporation to trailblaze across sites ambitious water efficiency approaches that can inform wider policy development and approaches in Cambridge over time.

There were quite a few comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Pinnock, on consultation and how that has taken place. MHCLG, supported by the Cambridge Growth Company, undertook a series of engagement and publicity events throughout the consultation period, engaging residents, businesses and councils. This was supported by communication about the consultation and public participation through community-led events, MHCLG-hosted webinars and a wider programme of media and digital publicity, including local and regional press coverage, interviews, podcasts and social media. Social media coverage was amplified by local authorities, businesses and organisations.

The Government recognise the very complex challenges facing Greater Cambridge. They require a bold, long-term approach and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered. The magnitude of these challenges cannot be met through incremental change. I know that change can feel unsettling for local residents, so it is not surprising that their reaction to the plans coming forward is sometimes negative. However, importantly, the centrally led development corporation is the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale needed.

My noble friend Lord Smith referred to the rail link that has been promised before—it must now happen. I think he will get the sense from both the new Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister of how we see this as urgent and want to deliver it.

If I have missed any points, I will respond using Hansard, but I am running out of time, so I will just say, in conclusion, that this order delivers the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. We think this is absolutely the right way to generate the growth that will be both locally and nationally important for Cambridge. I hope noble Lords will welcome the order.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will now have 20 minutes for the Back Benches. This time is just for Back-Benchers, and we want to hear questions, not statements. We will start with the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. It is very encouraging to see how keen the Liberal Democrats are to scrutinise the Government. Given the inconsistent approach to last week’s reorganisation announcements, can the Minister please confirm whether officials advised Ministers that an expansion of the exceptional financial support package would be required to support some of the newly formed councils, which will come close to Section 114 territory upon formation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

When we took these decisions, we were very aware that some of the councils involved were already receiving exceptional financial support. We continue to work with those councils through the EFS process in the usual way, but LGR will save money over time and make the sector more sustainable in the long term. Where there are issues around funding and finance, the Government are already tackling this with our fair funding formula, and we have supported some authorities with exceptional financial support. We will continue to keep that under review where it is needed, but it will exist whether the confusing two-tier system remains or we transition to unitary authorities.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can my noble friend provide some details and facts? She may not be able to answer now, but I would like her to do so in writing. The Statement claims that there will be very substantial savings from this operation—savings of £1 billion are mentioned at one point—but it is much more opaque on the costs of the reorganisation. Many of us with experience of these things know well enough that this can be a very expensive business. Can my noble friend therefore provide clarity on two specific questions? First, how much has it cost so far? We all know that local authorities almost come to a standstill when they are contemplating their abolition, and that central government has also been spending a lot of money. Secondly, from the various references in the Statement, which I have tried to make sense of—£1 million for new unitary authorities, capacity building funds, et cetera —can my noble friend tell us the sum total of expenditure that the Government and local authorities are expected to spend to achieve this reorganisation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The estimate of the savings came from the work that the local authorities did themselves. I accept that there will be a great deal of work to be done through the process as we transition to these unitary authorities. But, quite frankly, I have worked in a two-tier authority in all my time in local government, and I think that the effort of going through the transition phase is well worth the endgame here: making sure that we have a system of unitary authorities right across the country; I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has done this exercise herself in her own council. They will be the building blocks for the devolution programme, as we continue to roll out devolution across the country.

The figures being provided for support for this process are: £1 million in funding for every new unitary council, £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. This is an investment to make sure that we have a consistent system of local government across the country and that those savings that councils have told us they can generate will occur.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister said yesterday:

“We will take power out of here and carry it into every postcode in the land so that they can do more”.


Indeed, the Minister said the very same thing a moment ago. Yet this Statement centralises power into unitary councils; it does not devolve power to town and parish councils. Why have they been missed out of this Statement? They clearly should be a key part of the Government’s planned devolution to postcodes. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord was part of the discussions on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which set out clearly the role of town and parish councils as we develop neighbourhood governance processes. I went to the National Association of Local Councils—NALC—conference recently and spoke to them, and they will be fundamentally involved and engaged in that neighbourhood governance process. The noble Lord is quite right that we need to make sure that, where funding is devolved, it does not stop in the mayoral authority but is devolved to our communities. We are keen to see that happen. The dialogue with town and parish councils is ongoing, and I look forward to those discussions with them as we take this process forward.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, it is obvious that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs, but this seems to have left rather a lot of shell in there, if we listen to the complaints from around the country. Can the Minister confirm that, if the new Prime Minister’s focus for the department will be mayoral devolution to mayoral combined authorities, the department has the bandwidth in this Parliament to deliver the set of unitaries that has been set out? It is clear from some of the conversations we are having that there is not enough bandwidth in the department to deal with all of this now. If the Government add to that the mayoral stuff, they will run that set of civil servants off their feet. I do not think the Government will have the capacity to deliver it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning our new Prime Minister, because he is quite keen on devolution—that might have something to do with his background in the last few years. I am sure he will want to see those building blocks of strong unitary authorities in place so that we can get on with the devolution process without further delay. Local government reorganisation is an existing policy that is already well under way, and the £63 million of funding that places will receive to support them with transition costs had already been agreed. We have announced this now, and I expect that my department will have active discussions—through our new Secretary of State, Angela Rayner, whom I welcome to her role—about how we do this. We have already asked those local authorities to consider the footprint they want to see for their foundation strategic authorities. The noble Lord asked about bandwidth in the department. The department has been outstanding so far in managing this process, providing us with the information that we need to take effective decisions against the criteria we set.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Minister and the Government on their decision to extend the boundaries of the city of Leicester. Does she agree with me that its current boundaries are absurd and should have been extended years ago, as half of what is really the city is presently administered by other authorities? Does she agree that the city of Leicester desperately needs more land for business and housing, and it needs much greater local funding to be able to satisfy its inhabitants?

Finally, does the Minister agree that the gerrymandering accusation is laughable? If anything, this decision allows other parties that have not had a look-in for many years a way into Leicester’s governance. It is something they should stop complaining about.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, as ever, particularly for his championing of Leicestershire, which he does admirably. The Government were always clear that boundary changes could be considered where there is a strong justification. Where proposals set out a credible case, we have considered them on their merits. This reflects the aim to ensure that new councils are able to deliver effectively for their communities over the long term, including supporting future growth. The point that my noble friend makes is really important in this. Some of our cities and towns are constrained by boundaries which came from a different era. If we are to maximise the growth in those areas, we needed to accept that there may have to be boundary changes. They are not a deviation from our stated criteria; they were absolutely part of our considerations to make sure that we met the challenge of growth for our towns and cities, but also that we enabled our local authorities to come forward with proposals that made sense for their local area.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, the Labour Party has a record of trying to destroy what it regards as Tory support, particularly in the shires. We saw that with its cack-handed approach to regional assemblies, which got nowhere. I do not know how well the Minister knows Devon, my county, but she has delivered on the agenda that has been pushed for many years by Labour-dominated Exeter City Council, which has had its eye on the rich plains of my old constituency of East Devon, which, under these proposals, it will now have. I believe that these proposals for Devon to have four different local unitary authorities do not serve the people of Devon. The Government have made a great announcement over the past 24 hours that all policies will be subject to rural-proofing. I simply ask the Minister this: what rural-proofing has been done on these proposals for the fourth part of these Devon proposals, which will leave a great swathe of rural Devon underrepresented, with the wealth concentrated in the three other unitary authorities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am going to sound a bit like a stuck record, but the proposals came forward from the local authorities themselves.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Well, we looked at all the proposals that were submitted and we assessed them. Noble Lords opposite can laugh if they want. I have been through this whole exercise of assessing every proposal that came forward against the criteria set for them. We did that fairly against the criteria that were set. We looked at every proposal to see how they best fitted the criteria and these are the decisions we made. I absolutely accept that not everyone is going to agree with those decisions, but we needed to make sure that we took account of the need to grow some of our towns and cities, to have sustainable and resilient public services—that was a really important consideration in this, on which we got advice from other government departments—and to set the boundaries where they would make a cohesive community. Those were the primary considerations, as we set out in the original invitation letter, and all the proposals that we received were considered against them.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as a councillor, I have always represented about 3,000 electors, but they and I always had the certainty and clarity of where strategic responsibilities and responsibility for service delivery lay within the London borough and the GLA. I do not believe that that has historically been the case for residents, or even councillors, in districts and counties. Will my noble friend say more about how she hopes to achieve that clarity by the changes that are coming forward?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this very important issue. Those of us who have operated in two-tier areas would often look at London boroughs and other unitaries—the unitary of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was very close to my local authority—to see that clarity is much easier for the public to understand in a unitary authority.

My noble friend is right to point out that these problems come with duplication, and there are benefits in eliminating that. For example, Buckinghamshire Council estimates that it costs around £30,000 a year just to tell people that they have got the wrong phone number. Those sums can be taken out to make that funding available to invest in front-line services.

The Secretary of State has announced an outcomes framework so that residents can see for themselves how well their council performs. But they should be judged against the same set of services and I very much look forward to the lack of confusion and to not having to have discussions, as I did many times in my own authority, about what are street trees, what are highway trees and who should be looking after which trees.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The Minister said that no decision had been made on unitaries in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. I looked at the letter that was sent to leaders of local authorities and it did not explain why a decision had not been reached. It did not explain what further evidence needed to be gathered in order to make a decision before October, as the Minister said. Of course, tomorrow this House is to debate the establishment of a development corporation in Greater Cambridge on a territory that is aligned with the expectation of where one of the unitary authorities would be. Now we will not know what the geography of unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be at the point at which we make that decision. Can the Minister tell me why a decision could not be made in Cambridgeshire?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful that we will debate that issue tomorrow, because at one point this afternoon I thought we might not. I am very pleased that we will debate the Cambridgeshire development corporation tomorrow.

In relation to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, local government reorganisation is a fundamental change that will affect residents for generations to come. Given the significance of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough for national economic growth, which I know the noble Lord will understand from very close quarters, it is very important that we take the time required to get this right. The Secretary of State has indicated that we will aim to reach a decision on which option to implement by October at the latest. We are still committed to the existing timetable, but we wanted to take account of some of the growth issues that are still emerging as we go through the next phase of this decision-making.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the NALC. The Green Party shares many of the concerns expressed from the Front Benches, and indeed the Back Benches, all around your Lordships’ House on the question of process and the imposition from Westminster of arrangements on local areas.

My question follows on from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about parish and town councils. The Minister said in responding that there would be support, because these are obviously going to be the remaining local representatives who people can go to with very local issues. The Minister said that this would be strengthened. But, of course, many areas of the country do not have parish and town councils. Very often, they are newer-developed and generally poorer areas. Are the Government seriously looking at expanding the coverage of parish and town councils, so that people will have a local representative that they can go to, rather than a far-distant unitary councillor?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

First of all, I do not think that they will be far-distant unitary councillors. In my experience, councillors have a great connection with their local area and they will continue to do so. I will answer the noble Baroness’s question in two ways. There is still a process where people can apply to have a parish or town council for their area. That process remains in place. If people wish to set up a town or parish council, they can do so. The other thing that is coming through very shortly from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act is the neighbourhood governance process. The details of that will be set before the House very shortly, so we can debate that as well.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, possibly unlike in some other areas, the proposals for Worcestershire for two unitary authorities geographically divided by north and south have come from the councils themselves? The seven district councils have worked together to produce the two-authority model, which has survived changes in political leadership and been approved by councils of very different political complexions. I hope there will be the possibility at some stage to explain why that is the right decision. The Secretary of State’s letter says the proposal

“will allow each council to shape housing and economic strategies around its own area, including local issues such as land supply, affordability, regeneration, workforce needs and business strengths”.

Those are the reasons why local people and local councils in Worcestershire are supporting it, and I am delighted that that is what the Government have decided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his welcome of that decision. He is quite right, of course, that when these proposals were put forward there were areas on which there were different opinions within political parties about how things should be done, as well as differences between political parties. That is why it was very important that we judged absolutely against the criteria that we had set. In response to his question about the rationale for the decisions, all the areas that have had decisions will receive a decision letter from the Government setting out the rationale behind the decision, which I hope will help local areas understand how the process has worked. As I said, and as I will keep stressing, the proposals all came forward from local areas; we have not designed any of these proposals in Westminster.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, being a bit sceptical, like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, as to the alleged savings that will be made as a result of this, can the Minister tell us what mechanisms are in operation to stop councils which will be altered in their status embarking on large contracts between now and the new authority dates?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is a very important issue indeed, which we picked up on early in the process. The Secretary of State has written to all tiers of local government to ask them, if they are undertaking big contracts—which is sometimes necessary, because if your contract is running out, you cannot wait until the new authority is in place—to work in partnership across the local authorities involved to make sure that everybody understands what is being committed to. We have asked for the same with capital disposals, so that all local authorities make sure they are working in partnership and everybody understands what is happening, both with capital and with contracts.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I will start with where I think we have slightly more consensus and agreement. I believe my noble friend Lord Fuller made persuasive arguments on the importance of making best use of adapted properties. If the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, is correct and his amendment is not needed, that is fine, but I would far rather have the ability to do something if it is needed, so this is something that we should be looking at.

We have also heard a very persuasive case from the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for reviewing whether former members of our Armed Forces are able to access social housing effectively. I very much agree with this. One of the first instances I dealt with in my time as a councillor was that of a military family who were unable to access social housing. I was pleased that we were able to change the rules locally to make sure that they were able to access it.

My noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment raises questions on local accountability, the relationship between housing associations and the communities they serve and, in particular, councillor representation. When I first became a councillor, I was a councillor representative on our local housing association. That was quite normal; it all changed because of Treasury rules, as my noble friend alluded to, which meant that we could no longer sit on housing associations. My understanding is that those rules have changed slightly and we should take that opportunity to revisit this. Clearly, having somebody local who understands the local issues on housing boards is critical, particularly as some housing associations are getting very large and remote—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made that point. Certainly, if you have somebody in Stevenage and the housing association is being run out of Manchester—I do not know whether that is the case—they will not have that local knowledge, so getting it is important.

Finally, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill all centre on the already much-discussed issue of the shortage of suitable social housing stock, and our need to deliver and manage that stock efficiently for the maximum benefit of our communities. I turn first to Amendment 84, which is about greater transparency and local connection. We know that local authorities already possess these powers to take local connection into account when determining allocation. The question raised by this amendment is whether those powers are used consistently and transparently.

Amendment 85 would simply require the Government to consider how social housing can remain focused on those with the greatest housing need. It does not prescribe a particular outcome; rather, it asks whether, at a time of acute housing pressures, we are making the best use of limited housing stock, and whether there are ways of helping those whose circumstances have changed and improved towards alternatives, such as home ownership or right to buy, or helping them move into other options. It is not about divisiveness. It is about helping everybody into the best option that suits them.

Finally, on Amendment 83, we need the public’s support and their trust that this is a fair and open country. Social housing is supported by substantial subsidy or grant when it is built, and the public, rightly, deserve and need to understand that it is fair. That is at the heart of this amendment. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook highlighted at Second Reading, we continue to see high-profile cases that raise public concern: whether it is the First Lady of Sierra Leone or asylum seekers moving straight into brand new social housing, this raises concerns.

Now, that is not to deny the obligations that councils have to house those in need, but we believe that social housing exists to support those with the strongest connection to this country and their local communities. It is not about divisiveness; it is about being a single community. As we have heard in earlier debates, with many families spending years on waiting lists and local authorities facing ever-increasing pressures, it is entirely legitimate for this House to consider whether existing allocation rules command public confidence. For that reason, Amendment 83 gives priority for the allocation of scarce social housing to British citizens. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say but, if I am not assuaged, I intend to test the opinion of the House.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather, Lady Thornhill and Lady Coffey.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for moving Amendment 79. I very much support the intention behind it. Home adaptations can make a significant difference to disabled people, helping them live safely and independently in homes that meet their needs. I also agree that local authorities should make the best possible use of the homes available to them, particularly properties that have already been adapted.

Local housing authorities are responsible for setting their own allocation schemes, within the framework of legislation and statutory guidance. They will take different approaches to identifying and allocating accessible accommodation. Some may hold a separate register for applicants who need adapted housing, while others may record that information within their main housing register.

We will underline the importance of making the best use of existing stock, including adapted homes, in our updated statutory guidance on allocations. We will draw on evidence from the guidance review and the department’s wider work on stock management to share best practice with local authorities and registered providers. I would very much welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to that work and I hope that, on that basis, he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her amendment to review access to social housing for former members of the Armed Forces. I know this is a very important issue for the noble Baroness, as it is for me. This Government are committed to ensuring that those who have served, and their families, can access social housing when they need it. Current and former members of the Armed Forces community benefit from strong protections within the social housing allocations framework, including receiving the highest priority where they have urgent need and the exemption from the local connection rules introduced by this Government.

Op FORTITUDE, for example, is a single referral pathway to connect veterans at risk of or experiencing homelessness with help and support. As of 28 June, Op FORTITUDE has received more than 5,100 referrals and supported 1,150 veterans into temporary or supported housing. I take on board the noble Baroness’s point that very often these two things—the issue from the previous amendment and that in her own amendment—are often linked together in veterans who have disabilities.

My department already collects, assesses and publishes a range of data to understand the access of veterans to social housing, the details of which I have indeed shared with the noble Baroness. I suspect that the numbers we have in the department are low. I think the noble Baroness was quoting from the information I gave her. My department asks authorities to report households that both are members of the Armed Forces community and have been awarded additional preference under the allocation scheme. From this we can see that, in 2024-25, local authorities reported 2,649 households on housing registers that were members of the Armed Forces community and had been given additional preference. That is around 0.2% of the 1.34 million households on housing registers.

As I say, I suspect that that number is low. We rely on veterans to report this to housing authorities. I have discussed this with one of my local veterans’ charities, The Muster Point, which is working very hard to promote this fact, but it says that there is a multitude of reasons why sometimes veterans do not wish to disclose to the housing authority. They do not always understand that this is going to help them in their housing application, so we need to make sure that we get that message out there. I will talk to the noble Baroness and consider how we can do more on that, because it is very important that we get that message out there—that they need to disclose this at the point of their application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have outlined, both on this set of amendments and on previous ones, that we are carrying out an extensive review of stock management and allocation, so I hope all those issues will be taken into account in those reviews.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late, and I have said I will not press this to a vote, but I am sincere in my desire to protect homes for the most vulnerable in society, to protect dignity and to enable them to get out. I was very taken with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, who spoke from the heart. I accept the assurances that the Minister has given, but we need to reflect the reality of the situation we find ourselves in.

Today, there is a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will stay in her place. In the last Session, she had some monster Bills—the devolution Bill, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and whole tranches of the pensions Bill—as well as this Social Housing Bill in this Session. We have spent many hours on opposite sides of the Chamber, not always agreeing but always respecting our views. With that in mind, I hope we can have an assurance that we will come back with something at Third Reading that places in the Bill some of the reassurances she has given for a new Government, to bind the new Secretary of State. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I ask the Minister to make good use of the data: collect it, make it visible and make it open and transparent. If that is done in a timely manner, our new Prime Minister—the Minister’s new Prime Minister—will make more of the housing that is available. To that end, if we press this amendment, I hope that all Members opposite will join us, because it is the will of the new Prime Minister.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for Amendment 82, which seeks to ensure that local authorities receive the necessary information and collaborate with others to support prison leavers at risk of homelessness. I echo the noble Lord’s words about my noble friend Lord Timpson. He was an exceptional Minister who brought both the discipline of running a business and the compassion that he embodies in the principles by which he runs his business to his ministerial role. He has been an incredible success as a Minister and I wish him well for the future.

This amendment is focused on an issue that my department and the Ministry of Justice recognise. Supporting people into accommodation on release from prison is critical to reducing both homelessness and reoffending. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for meeting my officials and for the work that he has done previously with my noble friend Lord Timpson on this issue. Although I recognise and am supportive of the intent of the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. Public bodies such as His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are already required to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person’s choice.

The Government have also outlined an ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness. Collaboration is key to achieving this goal. As the noble Lord said, we have committed to consulting on a duty to collaborate to compel certain public bodies to work together to prevent homelessness and support those who are at crisis point. Getting the design right will be important to ensure that public services work together more effectively to identify those at risk of homelessness as early as possible. I always get a little nervous when I read out something such as “getting the design right”, because that sometimes means a very long time thinking about it. Let us therefore be optimistic about our new Prime Minister’s pledge to end rough sleeping. We know, as the noble Lord said, that a lot of these issues lead to rough sleeping, so I hope that our PM’s pledge to end it will accelerate progress on this issue.

My department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison through the CORE data collection and publishes this annually. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for raising the important issue of effective use of social housing stock in Amendments 86 and 87. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Addressing illegal subletting, as Amendment 86 would, is an important element of that. However, as I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management, which will report later this year—not too long to wait for that. It will examine issues covered by these amendments, including voids, underoccupation, unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature to legislate for a separate review or strategy before that work has concluded. This will enable us to properly assess its findings and inform next steps.

The amendments would also duplicate existing data collection. Much of the information they seek to mandate is already collected through sources, including the CORE social housing lettings data and local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined.

Where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the Government expect landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure that social housing is used fairly. This may include taking legal action. I was very pleased to read about a case in Hertfordshire today where technology was used to detect and convict on a housing fraud case. That will be a very useful tool in supporting this work.

On 8 July, the Government announced a new, innovative data-sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first-of-its-kind agreement, led by the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office, will ensure that social housing properties remain there for the families that need them and are not in the hands of criminals. For those reasons, I respectfully ask that these amendments are not moved.

Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on governance standards for registered providers of social housing. It is of the utmost importance that registered providers are well run organisations and that fundamental principles such as transparency and accountability are core to all their operations. However, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware, registered providers of social housing are already subject to standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Specifically, private registered providers are required to meet the outcomes that are set out in the regulator’s governance and financial viability standard. This standard requires private registered providers to have effective governance arrangements that deliver their aims, objectives and intended outcomes for tenants and potential tenants in an effective, transparent and accountable manner.

Local authority-registered providers are not subject to this standard but instead are subject to a range of other governance requirements, including the statutory best-value duty. This requires them to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of their functions, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, all registered providers of social housing must meet the outcomes set out in the regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard, which requires that they take tenants’ views into account in their decision-making on how landlord services are delivered. Consequently, I am of the view that further governance standards set by the Secretary of State would duplicate these existing requirements set by the regulator. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, not to move their amendment.

That said, the regulator is currently seeking views through its discussion document, More and Better Social Homes, on its approach to economic regulation. This includes exploration of good governance and how to regulate for it. If there are specific ideas about how to strengthen governance requirements in the sector, I encourage noble Lords to engage with this process. If anybody needs any help with that, my officials will be happy to facilitate.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

The Minister said that the stock management review would come before the end of the year. Can she be clearer about a timescale? Will it be in the autumn or on Christmas Eve? Will that review show the data openly and transparently so that people can assess who is doing well and who is not?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is a review of the practices of stock management. It is intended to flag up good practice but also look at what needs doing further to make stock management easier. I am going to say yes to the second question. To the first question, the safest that I can say is “by the end of the year”. The year ends, as far as I know, on 31 December, so it will be before that. I hope that it will be earlier than that, because we all want to get on with this work.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

Taking that one step further, is the Minister likely to share that with the House at that time? Obviously, I am hoping that she will still be in her place.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Discussions will take place when the review is complete. We have had some good discussions around this in the House. It is obviously of interest to noble Lords. I am very happy to discuss it further when we get the outcome of that review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, we have a new Prime Minister and I worry there may be unfortunate changes, so before I speak to these amendments I place on record that I have thoroughly enjoyed my 18 months with the Minister and sincerely hope I shall enjoy many more months opposite her. As a fellow ex-council leader, she brings local government knowledge to a very important part of government.

I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. As we move into the night, we seem to be breaking out in harmony. I turn first to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. As ever, he is a passionate advocate for addressing homelessness and rough sleeping, and for better utilising housing stock—something that we have been pushing for, certainly as regards social housing stock.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire Council, I worked really hard to try to get empty housing back into use. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: EDMOs are a very difficult way of getting housing stock back. In the end, we moved to a CPO strategy. The noble Baroness is right: looking at how we make that more effective and efficient, not just for empty homes but for other matters to do with councils, would be important.

That brings me on to the issue of six months or two years. I know that six months sounds a long time, but I completely agree that trying to find the owners and going through the processes in six months is very difficult. It also raises a number of issues regarding probate. Probate homes, and other examples, are frequently empty for more than six months. That is not because the owners do not want to do something with their home; it is just going through the legal process.

However, it is absolutely right to highlight this issue and look at how we can make better use of property that is empty for extended periods. When a property is empty for two years or more, you will frequently find that there are other issues with that housing to address, and it can often end up being a blight on the neighbouring community. In defence of the previous Conservative Government, they introduced other measures that were very helpful. Having a double new homes bonus for bringing an empty home back into use was a very helpful additional resource while it lasted. The additional council tax for empty homes was also an incentive not to leave them empty.

I would say that my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment is thoughtful and inspirational rather than quirky. She is absolutely right to look at the role that Homes England could play in accelerating social housing delivery by making publicly owned land available to local authorities. Whatever view noble Lords may have about the specific mechanisms proposed, the amendment raises an important question about how public land can be best used to support the delivery of affordable homes and homes in general.

The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley reflects a principle that has long been associated with these Benches: a “brownfield first” approach. I do not think there has been any disagreement in the House about the idea of prioritising brownfield land. There is underused urban land across the country, and there are former industrial sites, vacant plots, and existing social housing estates that are ripe for regeneration. These sites offer an opportunity to deliver much-needed new homes while revitalising communities and reducing pressure on greenfield land.

Yet we need to recognise that building on brownfield is often more difficult, and it is not surprising that developers often take the easy option and seek to build on greenfield. Many Governments of all stripes and colours—this is not a partisan comment—have talked about a “brownfield first” approach, and there is a presumption in favour of brownfield. However, in the planning hierarchy, that is clearly insufficient because it is not working. It is all too easy for objectors to cite numerous planning grounds that delay and frustrate developments to the extent that brownfield sites become too high risk for developers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned that the planning inspector should do this, but when you have only a presumption in favour and not a strong material presumption in favour, that means that you have to take into account many other factors and objections. It is only if we raise brownfield above that level that we will see a step change, which we have not seen to date. Frankly, the proof is in the pudding: we are not seeing enough brownfield developments, so we have to do something.

As I said, this requires that increase in the planning weight given to brownfield land, which is the purpose of our amendment: not just a presumption but a strong material presumption in favour of brownfield development. We believe that that is a practical and balanced approach. It would support the delivery of new homes, would align with the principle of regeneration and would help to ensure that social housing is built in locations of greatest need and where the infrastructure and services often already exist. Too often, debates about housing become polarised between those who want more homes and those who wish to protect local environments. A “brownfield first” approach would help to reconcile those objectives. Conservatives have long championed this approach, which we believe remains the right way forward.

The common thread running through this debate is the need to be more ambitious in how we use the assets already available to us, whether that is empty homes, brownfield land or publicly owned land. On these Benches, we believe that increasing housing supply requires not only investment but a willingness to remove barriers to development where it delivers clear public benefit. Amendment 91 seeks to do precisely that. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Jamieson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. Before I respond to the amendments, I want to welcome our new Secretary of State, Angela Rayner. She was an absolute powerhouse when she was in the department before, and I am sure she will be again. I hope I get the opportunity to work with her again there. Honestly, if the combination of Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham cannot tackle the housing crisis, nothing will, especially if they are advised by our formidable noble Lord, Lord Bird. That will create the fire and the passion that we need to sort this out once and for all.

Turning to Amendment 89, the Government are clear that, if we want to see more empty homes brought back into use, we absolutely must ensure that that is a focus. I am sympathetic to the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to reduce the time that a property must be empty before a local authority can apply for an empty dwelling management order. We all know that there are many and various reasons why properties are left empty, and many of them have already been mentioned. Sometimes there are probate cases and there can be disrepair and insurance cases: if you have subsidence in a property, the insurance company will insist that you leave it empty while it measures the impact of the subsidence. There can be adaptation or tenancy issues, ownership disputes, and abandonment and lender reclamation for properties where the bank or building society needs to reclaim the property. When I was a council leader, there was nothing more frustrating to me than seeing not only properties left empty but then the expense and time that councils had to go to to bring them back into use—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to that process.

As we outlined in the English devolution White Paper, we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes, and the Government will confirm further details of how we will deliver this in due course. I do not believe it is necessary to legislate in this Bill to deliver the stated aims of the amendment, because we can already deliver the changes needed by secondary legislation. We already have those powers and we intend to bring forward this secondary legislation as quickly as possible.

Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, would place an obligation on the Government to create a national strategy and to provide a loan scheme to bring long-term empty homes into use as low-cost rental accommodation. It would also require the Government to provide an annual update on progress under the strategy. I fully understand the aims of the amendment to support local authorities with investment and tools to acquire and renovate empty homes and to analyse the progress on tackling empty homes.

On funding, including the amendment’s proposed loans programme, I note that local authorities can already access grant funding to acquire empty homes through a number of existing programmes designed to support the building and acquisition of social housing. This includes the existing affordable homes programme, the new social and affordable homes programme and the local authority housing fund; the Public Works Loan Board also offers lending to local authorities to support housing objectives, including to acquire empty homes. Setting up a new ring-fenced loans programme for empty homes could overlap with and complicate the funding picture for local authorities, requiring them to bid to multiple different funds to deliver projects involving empty homes in their areas, so I am not persuaded of the value of this part of the amendment.

I am also not convinced that a national strategy is the most effective approach. As I have said, the Government are already committed to strengthening the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes. We want to do that as quickly as possible, but to be successful it is vital that each local authority creates a plan to tackle empty homes tailored to its own local circumstances. The scale of and reasons for empty homes can vary hugely, requiring a tailored local action plan, not a nationally prescribed plan. I therefore request that Amendments 89 and 90 are not pressed, but I invite the noble Lord to discuss further how we are progressing commitments to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over empty homes and how we can ensure that existing funding programmes are supporting his intended outcomes. I fully expect that he will be called into No. 10 to do that, but if he has any spare time, perhaps he can come and talk to us in the department as well. That would be wonderful.

Turning to Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, the Government are strongly committed to a “brownfield first” approach. We discussed it many times in this Chamber during the passage of the planning Act, including the development of social housing. We have been clear that brownfield land must be the first port of call. To support this ambition, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in December 2024 to set out that proposals for brownfield development should normally be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include large areas of hard standing, better reflecting land that is already developed, and made clear that plans should deliver greater density in urban areas. The Government are committed to prioritising the building of new social rent homes, and to reflect this we amended the definition of “affordable housing” in the framework to provide a separate definition of social rent, rather than referring to it as just one thing.

We are clear that local authorities should set out the minimum proportion of homes for social rent that should be delivered on new developments. We recently consulted on further measures to strengthen support for development on brownfield land in the framework, including introducing a presumption that development inside settlements should be approved unless any adverse effects would substantially outweigh the benefits of doing so. The consultation included proposals to encourage local authorities to identify sites for estate regeneration in their local plans. This will give residents a formal opportunity to comment on such proposals through the plan-making process.

All this demonstrates the strong support for brownfield development and the building of new social rent homes that already exists in the National Planning Policy Framework and in emerging policy. This addresses what I believe to be the intention of the noble Baroness’s amendment. As such, in our view a strong presumption, as proposed by this amendment, is unnecessary and duplicative as existing and emerging policy already sufficiently seeks to achieve this aim. We will shortly be publishing the new National Planning Policy Framework that resulted from the amendments and the consultation we have done.

Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to require Homes England to transfer its land free of charge to local authorities where a local authority requests the land for social housing. The noble Baroness reminded me of our first Housing First scheme in Stevenage, for which we used a patch of council-owned land and modular buildings to deliver a supported housing scheme of 18 homes for homeless people with complex needs. We delivered that within 12 months, so the noble Baroness is right; it can be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

We have discussed brownfield many times, and I think that we are both in agreement that that should be the preferred option. The issue that I am seeking to address is that, while we all agree it should be the preferred option, in reality that is not happening. I use London as an example with very low housing delivery. The problem is that, as the Minister said, if substantial harm were to occur, a proposal will not get approval, but substantial harm is based on the weighting given to the different factors in the planning hierarchy in the planning regime. To use the example of a recent planning application whose rejection was upheld on appeal, a dilapidated shopping centre in Peckham was going to be converted into 800 or so housing units, but the planning inspector deemed that the view of a historic clock tower outweighed the benefit of housing in that area. I do not know enough details about that, but my point is that the weight given to that was greater. The point of our amendment is to increase the weight relative to other weights in the planning system such that a proposal is more likely to go through rather than less likely to go through. I appreciate the changes that are coming to the NPPF, but can the Minister confirm or agree that, if we do not see a material improvement in brownfield development, the Government would reconsider the various weightings given within the NPPF?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on individual planning cases—it would be very unwise to do so from the Dispatch Box. But he will know that there has been, as I said, this recent consultation on the NPPF. It has a different rules-based policy approach and that has been out for widespread consultation. We had 20,000 responses to that. The new NPPF would introduce an expectation that local authorities plan to meet as much of their development needs as possible on brownfield land, and that is supported by a whole series of policies which will increase housing supply on brownfield, include providing strong policy support for the intensification of brownfield to provide those additional homes.

It would be fair to say that, whenever we introduce a new NPPF—and we certainly did last time when we introduced one in December 2024—we have monitored it and made some changes to it. We are constantly looking at the NPPF, and that is the benefit of the way our planning works. We can be flexible in the way we approach these things. I am sure that officials will continue to keep that under review once the new NPPF is published.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I will make my final comments. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, obviously does not know Peckham, because, if he did, he would know that the clock tower is very important for the well-being of people in Peckham, as there is not an awful lot to look at. I am sorry—I am joking.

But it is interesting that we cannot achieve many of the things we would like to achieve in this world because of newts or clock towers getting in the way. I have been involved in the brownfield site argument. When I worked as a member of a revolutionary organisation in Southall, we tried to get the old AEC factory turned into a housing association. Eventually, it became a private housing residence, so it did work its way out. There are many limitations to brownfield sites.

In summing up, I would like to dwell more on the idea of businesses investing. Amendment 90 focuses on the idea that we can get businesses involved in investing in social housing. When I say businesses, I mean social businesses such as Big Issue Invest. We found it incredibly difficult to invest in social housing. Forgive me for saying so, but all of the reasons why it is easy are not easy: Big Issue Invest has funds and can get more funds to invest in social housing, but the impediments are largely because of planning and the fact that there are all sorts of limitations placed on it. I would like to see social businesses and businesses meeting their ESGs and using their money to bring about social transformation.

Companies such as L&G want to build more social housing, but the impediments placed on them are quite incredible. That is why I raise the possibility of removing all the impediments to investment by businesses, which will make money out of social housing but will be able to provide people with what they need.

There is a company I am working with called Resonance, of which I declare I am not a director, and there is no way I will get money out of it. Resonance is a business that takes social housing that local authorities cannot develop because they are void. It does them all up and then brings in tenants who are taken off the streets, so to speak. It is absolutely brilliant, but there are too many impediments to the ability of business to help us with the voids and the empty homes. I am looking at these little things from my own experience, not from the experience of other people. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment—God bless you.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am not sure that it is quite as big, difficult and dramatic as that—we just did it.

We believe that the priority must be more social housing. We believe in better protections for existing stock and a housing system that works for those who need it most. We do not believe that these amendments help us to achieve that. I completely respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and his team on this. I believe this is a legitimate political difference and we are just not going to agree on it, hence my short but sweet contribution. I hope to continue in that vein throughout the rest of the afternoon and evening—but not too late into the evening, I hope.

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

My Lords, it is probably every Minister’s worst nightmare to stand up in the House just a few minutes after the Secretary of State has announced that he is no longer part of the Government. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for thanking our Secretary of State, Steve Reed, for his service to housing, local government and communities. He has worked tirelessly in his time to ensure that our places and the people in them can achieve their full potential. I wish him well for the future. I know he will continue to serve from the Back Benches, or wherever else he ends up in government. Thank you very much, Steve.

It is a great pleasure to bring the Report stage of the Social Housing Bill before the House today. My town was built to house people from war-torn London in 1946, and my passionate belief that good homes are the foundation for people and places achieving their potential comes from that. Our Government are delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. In July 2025 we set out a plan for a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing, including a reinvigoration of council house building, and we have since launched a new 10-year £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, with a focus on maximising delivery and increasing the supply of social rent homes.

The Bill supports councils to build more homes, alongside funding through the Council Housebuilding Support Fund, allowing councils to combine right to buy receipts with a social and affordable homes programme, extending preferential public works loan board borrowing and providing a 10-year rent settlement to give councils and providers greater certainty to invest in supply. Our new Prime Minister recently wrote:

“If you do not give people a good home, what chance have they got of having a good life?”,


which I agree with. His pledge this morning was not to end homelessness—although I am sure that is his ambition too—but to end rough sleeping, and I absolutely support that wish.

In Committee I stressed the narrow focus of the Bill on the three key issues that are its purpose: enabling local government to build new social housing while keeping alive the aspiration for those tenants who wish to do so to buy their home; supporting domestic abuse victims so that they are not re-victimised by the housing system; and removing some former social housing provisions that have never been enacted. I am grateful to noble Lords for discussions that have been broad and constructive, and, in order to assist your Lordships, I have provided details of two parallel pieces of work that I hope have assisted with the wider issues raised by Peers: the thoroughgoing review of statutory guidance on allocations, and the comprehensive review of stock management. I have also asked today for all sources of data on social housing to be circulated, which I understand has been done; I hope that those will be helpful.

Amendments 1, 2 and 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, repeat amendments already made in Committee. As such, I have already set out the rationale for increasing the minimum eligibility period for right to buy and made it clear that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I have also confirmed that we have no intention of applying this clause only to new tenancies. These amendments would undermine the chief aim of our right to buy reforms, which is to preserve existing social housing stock while ensuring that long-standing tenants continue to be able to buy their homes.

Three years hardly represents a significant period of investing in a property through rental payments. In consultation there was strong support—from 81% of respondents—for increasing the eligibility period, and indeed 10 years is the average tenancy length for someone buying under the scheme currently. Excluding existing tenancies would mean that the existing rules continued to apply to the great majority of council housing tenants, and we would continue to see homes being sold as early as three years after a tenancy was secured.

To respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about numbers, the reduced maximum cash discount levels still offer tenants significant financial support to buy their own home. Updated modelling suggests that a long-run average of around 1,500 council tenants annually will be able to buy their homes under the new discounts. Under the previous baseline, the system was projected to deliver a loss of around 26,000 homes between 2026 and 2036. By contrast, following the reduction in maximum cash discounts in November 2024 and the implementation of the Bill, we expect to see a net gain of around 18,000 homes in the same period. Taken together, this approach ensures that the scheme remains accessible and fair and delivers better value for the public while supporting tenants into home ownership. For these reasons, we oppose those amendments.

Amendment 4 seeks to retain the existing statutory timescales for processing right to buy applications by removing Clause 4 from the Bill. The Government do not support that. We have heard from social landlords that additional time is needed to process more complex cases—for example, in relation to valuation issues or safeguarding concerns. Additional time will also help landlords to undertake appropriate checks and identify cases that may require further investigation before a sale can proceed. Importantly, these revised timescales are maximum periods, not targets. We expect landlords to continue to process applications as quickly as possible, and tenants will continue to benefit from the existing statutory protections where delays occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I will continue with the brevity. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this thoughtful and constructive debate. Given it is my first time speaking this afternoon, I remind your Lordships of my interest as a part-owner of a rental property in Bexley and as a vice-president of London Councils.

We have heard a range of important contributions on how the disposal of social housing should be managed, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey and to the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Best, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward these amendments for consideration.

First, there is the importance of transparency. Whether through the provision of additional information on sales notices, the establishment of a national register or post-disposal reporting requirements, noble Lords have rightly highlighted the need for greater visibility of what is being sold, to whom, and with what consequences for local housing provision.

Secondly, there has been a strong focus on ensuring that social housing assets remain within the sector, wherever reasonably practicable. Amendments concerning notification periods, opportunities for other registered providers to purchase properties and the development of a code of responsible disposal practice all seek to address that objective.

Thirdly, several amendments have recognised that not all social housing is the same. Homes adapted for people with disabilities, homes in rural communities and homes let at social rent all make a particularly valuable contribution to meeting local housing need. It is understandable that noble Lords wish to ensure that such properties are not lost without proper consideration of the consequences.

We have also heard persuasive arguments regarding the recycling of capital grant and the importance of replacing homes within communities from which they are lost, wherever possible. As housing pressures continue to be felt across the country, there is clear merit in ensuring that local areas benefit from local reinvestment. From these Benches, we believe that housing providers should have the flexibility to manage their stock effectively, but that must be balanced against the equally important objective of maintaining the supply of social housing and ensuring confidence in disposal decisions.

This has been a valuable debate which has explored how that balance might best be struck. I once again thank all noble Lords who have participated, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on these amendments. I will now address those amendments relating to the operation of the disposals measure in the Bill. This measure is simple: it will ensure that councils and other social housing providers in the local area are notified before social homes are sold. In doing so, we hope it will do what we all want it to do, which is to maximise opportunities for other social housing providers to buy and retain social homes.

The new requirement must of course be balanced against the need to ensure that private registered providers are free to make their own responsible decisions about how to manage their assets, so they can keep their homes safe and decent and continue to invest for the long term. I am pleased that noble Lords are largely supportive of the measure, and I have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues raised in Committee with noble Lords ahead of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I do not see a particular need to wind up on these amendments. The concession that the Minister has made on Amendment 14 is pretty acceptable, given what is being asked. I was disappointed by her not moving on rural housing, but those are not really my amendments.

Generally, I can see why the Minister is worried about delay and overbureaucratisation, but I am disappointed that she has not been prepared to go further, particularly on the provision of information. Although the information is there, certain aspects are not being collected and it is not being publicised. The Government should have an interest in knowing exactly what is going on here and following through on it. However, having heard the Minister’s response, certainly to my amendments, I do not propose to press them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The point I was trying to make was that the Regulator of Social Housing is undergoing a complete review of that subject at the moment. I think it is appropriate for us to feed all that into the regulator’s review and let it work out with the sector what information is appropriate.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for suggesting that, certainly on Amendment 21. In other respects, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Fuller, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. They have brought forward these amendments and highlighted the very real challenges faced by many shared owners. I thank Lucy and the many others who have shared their examples with us that have brought this to light.

This has been a valuable debate on an area of housing policy which was intended to provide a bridge to home ownership but which, for some households, has been increasingly difficult to navigate. We have heard concerns about affordability, rising service charges, the costs associated with staircasing and the difficulties faced by leaseholders whose homes may be difficult to sell or mortgage. We have also heard concerns about the loss of affordable housing stock, where shared ownership properties leave the sector altogether.

The amendments before us seek above all to shine a light on these issues. Amendment 23 focuses on gathering better evidence about unsaleable and unmortgageable homes and on understanding the extent to which affordable housing stock is being lost. Amendment 25 asks the Government to undertake a broader review of whether the shared ownership model is delivering the outcomes it was designed to achieve.

From these Benches, we continue to support the principle of shared ownership as a route into home ownership for those who might otherwise be excluded from the housing market. However, support for the principle should not prevent us from examining how the scheme operates in practice and where improvements are needed. A review of the sort proposed by my noble friend Lord Young would provide an opportunity to assess the evidence, understand the experiences of shared owners and identify any barriers preventing the scheme from fulfilling its original purpose. If my noble friend is minded to move his amendment, we shall support him. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for tabling Amendments 23 and 25, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill, for their support. I recognise the constructive and persistent way in which the noble Lord has raised issues relating to shared ownership throughout the passage of the Bill and, indeed, in previous Bills. In my responses, I in no way want to undermine the difficulties of shared owners, which I understand have caused great anxiety and for which I am deeply sympathetic. In a moment, I will come on to the work that the department is doing to provide support for some of the issues the noble Lord raised.

I turn first to Amendment 23. Shared ownership landlords are independent bodies and decisions about the repurchase of individual homes sit with them. However, landlords already have the option to buy back homes, including where shared owners are unable to sell due to building safety issues. Landlords can already use their recycled capital grant funding to cover up to 100% of the cost of that.

Furthermore, allocating social and affordable homes programme grant funding for use on shared ownership buybacks would not be conducive to the core strategic objective of that new programme, which is to maximise supply, particularly of social rent homes. We expect landlords to set out any buyback policies, or confirm if they do not have one, on their websites. Ultimately, the solution for those struggling to sell their homes due to building safety issues is the remediation of unsafe buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive approach that she has taken throughout consideration of the Bill and for listening to concerns raised from across the House on the provisions relating to domestic abuse. I know that a number of noble Lords highlighted situations where abuse does not occur solely within a current or former intimate relationship but can also involve wider family members, including circumstances where children abuse parents, parents abuse children or other family members within the household are victims.

It is therefore welcome that the Government have reflected on those concerns and brought forward amendments which broaden the scope of these protections. The objective must always be to ensure that victims are protected and not left at a disadvantage, simply because their particular circumstances do not neatly fit within a narrower definition.

During Committee, we also raised concerns about the practical operation of these provisions and over the timescales involved in securing outcomes through the courts. While it is right that safeguards are in place, it is equally important that victims are able to obtain protection without unnecessary delay. I hope that the Government will continue to keep the implementation of these measures under review to ensure that they achieve their intended purpose in practice as well as in principle.

We have also heard valuable contributions on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The proposed duty to ensure continuity of tenancy for those forced to move because of threats of targeted youth or gang violence raises an important issue. Nobody should face the prospect of losing the security of their tenancy because they are compelled to move for the safety of their family.

Likewise, the amendment concerning access for registered providers to undertake essential safety inspections addresses a long-standing and very practical problem. Social landlords have a significant statutory duty in relation to gas safety, electrical safety and smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. Where access cannot be obtained despite reasonable efforts, there needs to be a proportionate mechanism that can protect both the rights of tenants and the safety of the residents. This amendment seeks to establish a clear framework for achieving that balance.

This debate is therefore united by a common theme of ensuring that the law provides appropriate protection, whether for victims of domestic abuse, tenants facing serious threats to their safety or residents whose well-being depends upon essential safety checks being carried out. I again thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the Minister for her engagement on these issues.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Neate, Lady Lister, Lady Teather and Lady O’Neill. I will be moving government Amendments 30 to 75; noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will move them en bloc and not one at a time.

This Bill introduces important changes to give greater security and stability to social tenants who are victims of domestic abuse while giving landlords stronger powers to take action against perpetrators. While these protections have been warmly welcomed, we have listened closely to the legitimate concerns raised that the Bill’s protections, which focused on abuse involving a resident partner or that partner’s resident family member, are too narrow. They risk excluding victims of familial abuse in non-partner relationships, such as abuse between adult parents and adult children, siblings or other relatives. The government amendments close that gap. I especially thank my noble friend Lady Hyde for her engagement on this issue.

The amendments align the Bill’s provisions more closely with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. by focusing on the victim who is personally connected to the perpetrator tenant and who occupies the home or has had to leave because of the abuse. They additionally make a number of consequential changes to who the court should consider when examining reasonableness under the discretionary ground or approving suitable alternative accommodation in joint tenancy cases. These amendments will deliver a fairer outcome for victims of familial domestic abuse. They demonstrate our Government’s commitment to engaging with the House and stakeholders, and to strengthening the Bill where there is a clear case to do so.

Commenting now on Amendment 28, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for tabling this amendment. It raises the serious issue of how the housing system responds when an existing social housing tenant needs to move urgently for their or their household’s safety. I thank the noble Lord for his constructive engagement with me on this issue. I also thank Helen Hayes MP; it was truly shocking to hear of the circumstances of her constituent, Georgia, and the shocking murder of Georgia’s son, Damarie Roye.

I agree that social housing tenants should not have to choose between their personal safety and the security of their home. There are existing protections: the social housing allocations framework requires that, where people need to move on welfare grounds, they must be given reasonable preference for social housing. Statutory guidance encourages local authorities to give additional preference to those fleeing violence. The Renters’ Rights Act will strengthen security of tenure for social housing tenants on assured tenancies from October 2027. However, I recognise the importance of considering whether we can go further to ensure that those who need to move for safety do not lose the security and associated benefits of their tenancy, which may have been built up over a number of years.

We need to consider carefully how any new duties on landlords would operate, particularly in assessing whether there is a threat to safety and where a landlord does not have suitable accommodation. We believe that further work is needed before any solution to this policy issue can be put forward. I have asked officials to explore this matter at pace, and we are keen to continue discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and stakeholders on possible solutions, ahead of the Bill moving to the other place. I hope the noble Lord will understand how committed I am to ensuring that nobody should have to choose between their safety and their tenancy.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 29, which seeks to introduce a statutory route for registered providers of social housing to gain access to homes to fulfil their statutory safety duties. Since he last introduced this amendment, we have had a helpful discussion about these issues and my officials have been working closely with sector bodies. I recognise that there is growing concern from the sector that a lack of legal clarity leaves it unable to conduct necessary tests and repairs, and risks tenant safety.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

30: Schedule 1, page 18, line 26, leave out “resident partner” and insert “victim”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on other amendments in my name which expand the grounds for possession of social housing where there is domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will not seek to elaborate on the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made a powerful case that, where we have an asset with a finite supply and excessive demand, we need to look at how we can use it effectively.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who spoke about the impact on the tenant: what about that person who is not able to access social housing because it is occupied by somebody who could comfortably afford their own private rented home or could afford a higher rent? I am not suggesting that everyone can but, where we have a finite resource, we need to use it efficiently. Ultimately, that is about fairness, not just to the existing tenant but to families, often in difficult circumstances, for whom the opportunity of a social home could turn their lives around—as it has turned around the life of somebody who has moved on and been successful. It is also about fairness to taxpayers. Why should someone who is struggling to pay their private rent see their taxes fund a subsidised home for someone earning more than they are? Again, I am not saying that they all are. This is about moving on.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Best, raised the issue of incentives and carrots, so I was surprised that, earlier on, he did not support the incentive of the ability to buy your own home under the right to buy. Surely that is a tremendous incentive for anyone who could afford to do it, thereby creating, through building, another social home for somebody in tremendous need.

With that, I very much support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment and the retention of the previous Conservative measure, because it is about fairness. It is about using stock wisely and about ensuring that it does the maximum amount of good for the maximum number of people.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for Amendment 77. I recognise that the intention is to ensure that social housing stock is being used as effectively as possible by requiring local housing authorities to review lifetime secure tenancies at least every five years. But the Government’s position is clear: we support secure tenancies because they provide stability and certainty for social housing tenants in the long term, and for the communities in which they live. This is especially important for families, older people, disabled people and other vulnerable households, who need a stable and secure home and the ability to put down roots in their communities that comes with the certainty that lifetime secure tenancies offer.

Local housing authorities already have tools to manage their housing stock and to support tenants who wish to move to accommodation that better meets their needs. Local authorities can carry out checks to assure themselves that tenants are meeting the terms of their tenancies. I agree that social homes should be used as effectively as possible to support housing need and that we should support landlords to ensure that this is the case. That is why the Government have launched a review into how effectively social housing providers are using their properties. This work is considering how landlords understand tenants’ changing needs and support tenant movement, including where changes result in tenants underoccupying homes. I wrote to all noble Lords ahead of Report with further details of this review. It will report later this year and will be used to help inform future policy development. It is important that we let this work conclude to better understand current practices and challenges before taking action.

On the extensive social housebuilding programme, the answer to lack of supply and to the people on the waiting list is: build more social housing. We have an extensive social housebuilding programme. Inevitably, it had a lead-in time but, now that funding is being allocated, it will quickly accelerate—and I suspect it might accelerate even more quickly now we have new management in place, but that is to be seen later.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I feel it is important to comment on that. That programme was announced over a year ago—I am pleased that the Minister has told me now that the allocations are available—and it will be interesting to see when the cash is out of the door. It will not deliver housing for at least another 18 months to two years. That is not making the step change that we need now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

But it is a programme that we started on, immediately we came into power, to fill the gap left by not building social homes for all those 14 years before we were in power. I appreciate that it takes a bit of time to get going, but we need to make a start on it, get the money out to those who will build the homes, and get them built.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 78. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that social housing is focused on those most in need. However, we do not believe that this is the right approach. As I outlined in Committee, the provisions on high-income tenants contained in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 have never been implemented. To provide regulatory certainty, Clause 17 repeals the provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spoke about ducking tough decisions. These measures were never implemented by the previous Government due to concerns that administrative costs would likely outweigh the revenue raised. We also want to avoid creating disincentives for tenants to increase their earnings.

Furthermore, income should not be equated with housing need or indeed a lack of housing need. Some households earning higher incomes may have additional needs that mean that social housing is the only appropriate option for them. This is an important consideration. Social landlords already have flexibility to run discretionary schemes for higher-earning tenants if they wish to do so, and they will retain this flexibility. For those reasons, I ask that these amendments are not pressed.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who took part in this relatively short debate. I recognise that my proposition on Amendment 77 has not commanded the breadth of support needed to convince your Lordships to change the law. The noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned the bedroom tax. I remember the hostility from the Labour Party when the coalition Government introduced what Steven Webb called the “spare room subsidy”. I note, however, that there are no plans to change it at all from the incoming Labour Government.

I will say a word in defence of Amendment 77, which did not propose that somebody’s rent should go up if their income went up—that is Amendment 78. It would also not be my proposition that, if somebody is on benefits, they should be made to forgo their tenancy. The gap between my proposition and what the Minister has just said is relatively small. I wanted a dialogue, with no compulsion, outlining the options available to somebody whose circumstances had improved, perhaps offering some help with a deposit or, as I said, with shared ownership. In response, the Minister said that social landlords can already do this.

You can give lifetime tenancies, but there are consequences: people in real need will not get access to a secure tenancy as fast as they might if there were more mobility through the social housing sector. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Rights of Boat Dwellers Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill. The noble Baroness raises a very important issue, which, as she knows, we have debated before in your Lordships’ House. The Government recognise the important role that the waterways play in enriching people’s lives by providing homes for those who live on boats. With the housing crisis that we are only now beginning to tackle, the option is being considered by more and more people.

The Government are committed to tackling insecurities across all housing sectors, including boat dwellers. The question before us is about not only housing rights but the practical management of finite public waterways and the ability of navigation authorities to discharge their statutory responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this. Several of the Bill’s provisions would substantially reduce the ability of navigation authorities to enforce licensing requirements and to manage the network fairly. While the Government accept the need for proportionality and appropriate safeguards, navigation authorities must retain the ability to deal with persistent non-compliance, licence evasion, unsafe vessels and potential obstruction of the network.

To use a boat as a main and only home, the boat owner will require a licence, a mooring with planning permission for residential use and the agreement of the mooring owner. The agreement with the mooring owner will grant the boat owner a licence to occupy the mooring and will set out how long the boat owner can stay on the mooring. A boat owner on a residential mooring may also benefit from the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. This requires a mooring owner to obtain a court order to evict a boat owner who continues to use the mooring after their licence agreement has ended.

Boat owners using their boats for other purposes, including recreational use, will have access to other types of moorings, including utility and short-stay visitor moorings. On waterways managed by the Canal & River Trust, if a boat is licensed without a home mooring, it must move on a regular basis and must generally not stay in the same place for more than 14 days.

The Bill aims to formally recognise the rights of people whose main home is a boat, the definition of which in Clause 2 includes a number of floating structures. The Government do not consider that the proposed legislation would achieve its intended outcome. The Bill proposes that boats should be brought within the definitions of “house” and “dwelling” in Section 99 of the Housing Act 2004 and that other legislation be amended as required, so that boats would then be considered as lawful homes and boat owners would have access to public services.

The existing definition of “house” in Section 99 of the 2004 Act currently refers only to a “building”. A “building” is defined in common law as a structure which forms part of the realty, changes the physical appearance of the land and requires some degree of permanence. Section 99 also defines the term “house” as it applies to the selective licensing regime. The proposed amendment would therefore have practical effect only where a boat is located in an area already designated for selective licensing. The amendment would not have any impact if the boat was not located in an area subject to selective licensing.

Clause 5 places a duty on the Secretary of State to, within one year of enactment,

“publish a report to assess the extent to which boat dwellers with and without permanent moorings have security of tenure within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954”.

In simple terms, “security of tenure” under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 means that certain tenants may have a right to stay in occupation or seek a new lease when their existing lease comes to an end. That regime applies only in specific cases, including some long residential tenancies at low rents and certain commercial tenancies.

Boat owners on a residential mooring will not be party to a commercial lease: rather, they will have a licence to occupy the mooring. Boat owners without a residential mooring will also not have a lease agreement: rather, they must comply with the terms of the boat licence agreed by the relevant navigation authority. Therefore, the concept of security of tenure, as it applies to long tenancies at low rents and to commercial leases, is not relevant here. The Bill also places certain requirements on relevant authorities, which include navigation authorities, port authorities, the Environment Agency and riparian owners. There would need to be extensive consultation with those authorities on the Bill’s proposals to ensure the effective operation and management of the waterways.

I turn to some of the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, whom I thank for his long campaign on this subject. He and I have had many conversations on this issue. On security of tenure, boat owners with a residential mooring have that licence to occupy the mooring, and their security of tenure will depend on the terms of the agreement they entered into with the mooring owner. As I said earlier, they may also be protected under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Some boat owners will not want a residential mooring but instead prefer to move frequently around the waterways, and it is important that boat owners continue to have that choice. A tenancy arises when a landlord grants a person a legal right to exclusive possession of premises for a specified period of time in return for the payment of rent. In law, a licence arises when there is no right to exclusive possession and there is no intention to enter into a legal relationship of landlord and tenant. A boat owner’s security of tenure will depend on the terms of the agreement with the owner of the residential mooring.

Access to public services is a key point and I understand the concerns about it. Boat dwellers who have a residential mooring will have security of tenure based on their mooring agreement and will be able to access public services. Giving boat dwellers without a residential mooring the same rights as those with a residential mooring would have significant implications for the management of the waterways. Any changes that may impact the management of waterways should be taken after consultation with navigation authorities and key stakeholders and must also take account of the findings of the review commissioned in 2025 by the Canal & River Trust, one of the largest navigation authorities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, particularly mentioned issues of GP and other services. For GP services, there is no regulatory requirement to prove identity, address or an NHS number to register as a patient, and there is no contractual requirement for GPs to request this. If anyone is turned away by a GP, the NHS has published guidance online on what their rights are. A residential mooring will usually have a fixed address attached to it, which will enable the boat owner to access public services just like anyone else in the catchment area. They can register with a local GP and dentist, access local schools and vote.

On the issue of education for people not in residential moorings, I will write to the noble Baroness. I know that LEAs have responsibility for people who move around the country, because they do for Travellers, but I am not sure how that applies to boat owners, so I will write to her on that.

On different GP IT systems, I am not sure that that is an insurmountable issue, because GPs will treat you in a different part of the country if you are there on holiday, for example. So I am not clear why that should be an issue for people who move around the country for other reasons. So, if the noble Baroness perhaps has some evidence on that, I would be happy to look at it and find out more about where there is an issue.

Banks, the DVLA and HMRC will all generally accept a residential mooring address in the same way as other addresses. Many banks may insist on a fixed residential address for identity checks, though.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised housing needs assessment, which is a good point. Planning policy of course requires local authorities to assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community, and to set policies to address those needs. Those groups include Travellers and boat dwellers.

I recognise and welcome the commitment of the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Cashman on the issue of boat dwellers. The Government’s opposition to the Bill is based not on any lack of respect for those views but rather on a lack of clarity on what the Bill intends to achieve. Any changes to the security of tenure of boat owners must be carefully considered, together with the views of all navigation authorities and the findings of the 2025 review on the licensing of boats, commissioned by the Canal & River Trust.

The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Cashman will appreciate the current pressures on resources in my department and the many competing demands to add additional priorities for work to be carried out on policy. That said, I am sure that with a fair wind, to use a boating expression, I will be happy to continue discussions with them about how we work to make things better for boat dwellers. With that, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.

Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 April be approved.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 June.

Motion agreed.

Social Housing Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 13, Schedule 1, Clause 14, Schedule 2, Clauses 15 and 16, Schedule 3, Clauses 17 to 22, Title.

Motion agreed.

Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will resist the temptation to talk about last thing on a Friday being the graveyard slot. This is a very serious topic. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for tabling this Private Member’s Bill and for giving me the opportunity to meet with him yesterday to talk through what he wanted to do and the principles around the Bill. I also thank my noble friends Lord Stansgate and Lord Brooke for speaking to me in advance of the Bill coming before the House.

I start with a phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, used: that every family should have access to a dignified burial close to their community. That was a very important phrase to someone who has been involved with local government for as many years as I have, and I know he has. It is very important that we keep our focus on that. I recognise the importance of the provision of burial space. I have some reservations around the necessity for the Bill, which I will come to in a moment.

The Bill as proposed would require local planning authorities to include suitable provision for burial space in their local plans and put that on the statute book as a separate issue to other issues that come forward for planning. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the policy expectations for what should be considered in the development of the plan, including local plans and in decision-making. The framework for what should be considered is set through policy and not statute, to offer the necessary flexibility to local planning authorities across the country to consider their local area and the specific needs of the local population.

It is a matter for local authorities to allocate local resources in line with their priorities, and this includes burial provision. In areas where this is an issue, such as London or Cambridge, many local authorities already include specific policies on burial grounds in their local plans. We want to ensure that local planning authorities can do this where there is a concern, but are not required to allocate where there is not an issue in their local area. The current NPPF includes policies to ensure that there is provision for community facilities and public service infrastructure in local areas.

The current version of the NPPF does not directly reference burial spaces. However, it sets out that strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places that make sufficient provision for community facilities such as health, education and cultural infrastructure. It also allows for the provision of burial space on green-belt land. That might respond to one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about treating that kind of development differently.

We consulted on an updated National Planning Policy Framework between September 2025 and March 2026. The draft NPPF is clear that development plans should promote the creation of healthy and inclusive places and the provision, retention and enhancement of appropriate community facilities and public service infrastructure. It is up to a local authority to determine the local need for those facilities, which could include burial grounds, as many local authorities have already done.

The proposed NPPF also offers protections for existing burial grounds through setting out that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is unlikely to apply in situations which would involve the whole or partial loss of undeveloped land which is used for a cemetery or burial ground. Furthermore, the draft NPPF sets out that burial grounds are a form of development where there are benefits to approval outside settlements and that they are not inappropriate in the green belt. We received over 20,000 responses to the consultation, including a small number on this specific issue. We are currently analysing all those responses and intend to publish our response with the new NPPF in the summer.

The Law Commission’s recent report was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. We are acutely aware of concerns around burial space, which were considered in that report. While the report did not call for statutory burial provision, as the Bill does, it did address a number of issues, such as burial ground management and records, which my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are leading on. We will publish a government response to the Law Commission report in due course, and I look forward to working with MoJ colleagues and local government as we take these important issues forward.

Turning to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Stansgate for taking us through the history of burial and how it works. I found the HS2 excavations and some of the information that they have thrown up really fascinating. We have had our own example of that in Stevenage, where Roman remains were found when we were excavating sites. It is fascinating. Both he and my noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned the fact that the Bishops are not present today; I am sure that they will have their own views and that they will get involved in the Bill at a later stage. When my noble Lord Stansgate referred to the “midnight Bill” as the Anatomy Act 1832, it put me in mind of a much more up-to-date version, which was the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which saw us here at four o’clock in the morning—that practice was not limited to the 19th century. Of course, I am also aware of the issues around Bishop’s Stortford in the Bill that came through this House that he mentioned.

My noble friend Lord Brooke spoke about being in the waiting room. I hope he has as long a wait in that waiting room as we would all want him to have: we want to see him here long into the future. Both he and my noble friend Lord Stansgate mentioned the Church of England. Of course, burial on land consecrated by the Church of England is governed by the faculty jurisdiction and is a matter for the Church, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Brooke will continue his dialogue with the Church of England on that.

On the point that my noble friend Lord Brooke made about green policy, I want to highlight the very good practice we are seeing in some areas of providing for green burial grounds, which is very creditable. I pay tribute to my colleagues in local government for their action in this respect. I think that has been a really great development in recent times.

The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, asked what the Government are currently doing on the provision of burial space. We are aware of increasing local pressure on burial spaces in some parts of the country. He will know that we do not have day-to-day operational responsibility for burial grounds, which are managed locally, and that there is no statutory duty on local authorities to make that provision. It is a matter for each local authority to allocate local resources, but the Law Commission’s recent report means that we are very keen to engage with stakeholders, including local authority representatives, to understand how, in the context of responding to the commission’s recommendations, we can best facilitate local provision and management of burial capacity going forward. Certainly, it is my intention to do that.

I have already spoken about the Law Commission recommendations. There is, of course, a very close connection between the work streams that the Law Commission has under way on this, and we will consider the most practical approach to publishing our response, including the timing.

The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, mentioned the specific requirements for different communities in terms of burial practices, as did my noble friend Lord Stansgate. Measures have been taken in recent years to update crematoria, in particular, so that they better reflect and understand the needs of different cultures and faiths. It is for local authorities to deal with this because they can decide what their priorities are, depending on the groups they represent locally. We are keen to engage closely with representatives from faith communities on all issues in relation to death management, particularly when we work on that response to the Law Commission’s report.

The noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Jamieson, referred to the issue of funding for this. As I think was mentioned, it is a very long forward commitment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was talking about Highgate cemetery. These are of course long-term commitments that have to be made by local authorities, so, if the Government were to support this Bill, we would consider relevant impacts, such as those set out in the new burdens doctrine. I hope that responds to those questions.

It is of course appropriate for these matters to be addressed in local plans rather than legislation, so that local planning authorities retain the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of their areas and needs, which may of course include the specific needs of their diverse communities and local population. This is a timely intervention because of the progress of the National Planning Policy Framework, so I am incredibly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for prompting me, as we go through the stages of publishing the next version of the policy framework, to look in particular at this issue. We will respond to the recent consultation in due course and of course we will keep the matter under review, in the light of all the consultation responses we have had and the contributions in the House today. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

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

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 June be approved.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 1 June and, following a minor correction, relaid on 8 June. They set out the arrangements for a national scheme of delegation for planning decisions in England and a maximum limit on the number of members who may sit on planning committees. They are necessary to improve the effectiveness of planning committees and the quality and speed of decision-making in local planning authorities. If Parliament approves them, the regulations will come into effect on 31 October 2026.

Before I get into the detail of the regulations, I will respond to the Motion before us. I start by making it very clear that what we are doing is not an attack on local democracy. We know how vital local planning committees are. They know their communities and what development is needed in their area. We are trying to support them so that they can be as effective as possible. The regulations will allow them to focus on the applications which really matter to their communities, so that the housing and growth that they want and need can be delivered as quickly as possible. We also do not want to put further pressure on officers. They are skilled professionals. We want to ensure that they are trusted and empowered to make decisions on more applications, and more quickly, to ensure that much-needed development is brought forward in the right places at the right time.

These measures will mean that less time and resource will be spent on preparing for committee meetings for those smaller applications in Schedule 1, speeding up the decision-making process more broadly and freeing up important officer time to focus on those larger applications. These regulations do not change in any way the right of people to submit representations on planning applications, nor do they alter the existing requirements to consult on planning applications.

We have published statutory guidance to help local authorities implement these new measures and we have asked the Planning Advisory Service to provide support and training.

I will briefly explain how the national scheme of delegation will work. It places planning applications into two categories. In Schedule 1 are those applications which must always be delegated to a planning officer. The types of application we are talking about here are for minor residential development of up to nine dwellings, minor commercial and householder development. Schedule 2 sets out those applications which may, subject to meeting a gateway test, be referred to a planning committee for decision, including larger applications for planning permission not in Schedule 1. The presumption is that Schedule 2 applications will continue to be delegated to officers. However, we recognise that there may be cases where committee scrutiny would be appropriate and that is where the gateway test comes in.

Local planning authorities will need to identify a nominated officer, usually the chief planner or equivalent, and a nominated member, normally the chair of the committee, to determine whether an application meets the criteria of the gateway test. The nominated officer and member will have to agree that a Schedule 2 application meets at least one of the following criteria before it can be referred to committee: where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area; or where the application raises a significant planning matter having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. It is only where the nominated officer and member agree that at least one of those criteria is met that the application can be referred to committee. Otherwise, it will be determined by a planning officer.

We recognise that in the interests of transparency and propriety, regardless of whether the gateway criteria are engaged, it may sometimes be appropriate to refer applications where there is local authority involvement to the planning committee. We have therefore made specific provision for this in the regulations. The regulations also set a limit of 13 on the number of members on a planning committee to allow for focused and quality debates.

We have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders on these measures—from an initial working paper in 2024, through debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, two public consultations and many round tables and other events. We have listened to the differing views expressed and considered them carefully as we developed the final measures. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I query a couple of her comments? There was reference to the local plan. What happens with applications that are not in the local plan? Those are quite significant. We talked about reserved matters and the Minister admitted that, for very large applications, it is appropriate for those matters to come to a committee. But as both the Minister and I know, you have at local plan stage and at outline planning stage virtually nothing. It is a little more than a red line and some pretty graphics of what is proposed. There is nothing to tie the developer’s hands, and those changes can be very significant. We can see a 50% increase in the amount of housing, or the amount of affordable housing halving, the Section 106 amount halving—a whole series of things. Those are fundamental, not small changes. I agree with the Minister that the principle may have been agreed, but not the detail. There was also a comment about “significant” being decided locally. I just want to be clear: is the Minister saying that what is significant will be determined locally for level 2?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the reserved matters, I have already set out in some detail how they are going to be treated, and that they can go back into the process. The size of an application’s related outline permission will fall into Schedule 2. That means it can be subject to the gateway test and referred to committee, where councils think that is necessary. Applications that are not in the local plan will be subject to the gateway test, so they will be treated exactly the same as another application.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Sorry, I think there is a slight misunderstanding. I am referring to reserved matters applications below 500 houses. Obviously, the outline will have gone to committee, but, on my understanding of how it is written, will reserved matters for, say, a site of 499 houses, which is a major development in most places—and reserved matters can be dramatically different from what was initially envisaged—be allowed to come to committee if the senior planner and the senior officer believe that there has been a significant change? Further, the Minister referred to applications falling into Schedule 2 if they are not in the local plan. What about minor developments, which may not be in the local plan: would—and could—they go to committee?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The local authority will determine whether items that are not in the local plan are Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, and it will then decide whether those applications need to go through the gateway process. I am not sure what the argument is over reserved matters. While the principle of development is agreed at outline permission stage, every reserved matters application could still represent a substantial major development in its own right, and those will be subject to the same test as a new application coming in. If the outline permission does not meet that threshold, the reserved matters application will be in Schedule 1; if it does meet the threshold, it will go into Schedule 2 and be subject to the gateway test.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am sorry to be slightly pedantic on this, but the information I got from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was very clear: any reserved matters application that is below 500 houses is in Schedule 1—there is no significance test. I would be very pleased if the Minister, either today or later, could clarify that. In the same vein, everything that is a minor development—nine houses or fewer, and so on—even if it is not in the local plan, will be determined as Schedule 1, and therefore not subject to planning. If the Minister could clarify that, either now or subsequently, it would be very much appreciated, because that was certainly not what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee picked up.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thought that I had been as clear as I can be. Applications for fewer than nine houses will automatically be in Schedule 1, and there will automatically be an officer decision, so there is no need to clarify that any further. On whether applications of significant social or economic interest would be brought to the attention of the committee, a local council can put a definition of that in its planning guidance if it wishes. If that answers the noble Lord’s question on that point, I hope that I have picked up all the questions I have been asked.

Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, as part of the Renters’ Rights Act, a transforming set of reforms to bring more protections and security for tenants in the private rented sector, we are introducing a new landlord redress scheme. The service will resolve issues for tenants where their landlord has failed to address a legitimate complaint. It will provide impartial and fair resolution, giving tenants access to redress outside the court.

The Government recognise that most landlords are looking to provide a good service to their tenants. The new landlord redress scheme will support landlords to do just that, by providing guidance and tools to help them handle complaints locally and early in order to prevent escalation. This new service will close a key gap in housing redress, providing private rented sector tenants with enhanced consumer protection rights which tenants in the social rented sector already benefit from. It will help to raise standards in the sector by equipping landlords with tools and information on what best practice looks like.

These regulations are the first legislative step towards establishing landlord redress for the private rented sector. They set out the framework for how a mandatory private landlord redress scheme may be approved or designated. An approved scheme would be designed and run by an independent provider, while a designated scheme would be designed and administered by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State. The regulations also set out how such a scheme may be amended, allowing the service to adapt to emerging changes in the sector, and provide for continuity of redress by ensuring an orderly transition if a scheme closes or approval is withdrawn.

The regulations do not themselves approve or designate a redress scheme, nor do they impose an immediate requirement on landlords to join one. Rather, they set out the statutory criteria that any future scheme must meet, including requirements relating to governance, complaint handling, types of redress and enforcement of decisions, information sharing, reporting and review. They provide clarity and assurance for the sector on what can be expected of the service once it is established and in operation.

This framework is essential because a scheme cannot be approved or designated until these conditions are in force. It therefore enables the next stage of implementation: the establishment of the private rented sector landlord ombudsman scheme and, in due course, further regulations specifying which landlords will need to become members of a scheme and when such a requirement will come into effect. Subject to parliamentary approval, we will turn to progress the design of the scheme and ensure that it meets the robust conditions set out in these regulations. The scheme will be designated once the Secretary of State is content that it satisfies the approval conditions.

The intention is that the Housing Ombudsman Service, which provides redress to tenants in the social rented sector, will deliver the new private rented sector landlord ombudsman service, promoting consistency in redress across the sectors. We will continue work to implement the service, including developing the further regulations required and setting up the service. We will give landlords sufficient notice and clear guidance before any future requirement to join the scheme comes into force.

To conclude, these regulations put in place the minimum standards and safeguards that a private landlord redress scheme must meet, paving the way to establishing the new service and securing access to fair and binding redress for private tenants. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this SI. To be clear, we support the principle that tenants should have access to effective routes of redress when things go wrong. The overwhelming majority of disputes between landlords and tenants should not require lengthy, costly and stressful court proceedings when there is a fair and independent alternative. That is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward our own proposals for a private rented sector ombudsman.

The question is whether this scheme is proportionate and workable in practice. This needs to be done in the context of a housing crisis, with too few homes available for rent. We need a private rented sector that works for tenants but also for responsible landlords who provide those essential homes for millions of people across the country. A successful regulatory framework should protect tenants from poor practice without driving landlords out of the market or imposing burdens that ultimately increase costs for renters. I recognise the Government’s objective in establishing a mandatory landlord redress scheme, as there is a clear logic in ensuring that tenants have access to a system capable of providing independent, binding resolutions where complaints cannot be resolved directly.

We do, however, have a number of concerns. How will the interaction between landlords and managing agents be addressed? Many landlords employ agents to manage their properties; those agents are already required to belong to a redress scheme. Under these regulations, landlords will also be required to join such a scheme, which we raised during the passage of the Bill. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to avoid duplication where a complaint relates to actions involving both a landlord and an agent? If a tenant complains about property management repairs, communication failures or other issues where responsibilities overlap, how will the scheme determine who is accountable? What safeguards exist to prevent multiple investigations into the same complaint and conflicting outcomes being reached by different bodies?

The Government have described this scheme as a complementary measure, sitting alongside local authority enforcement powers, licensing regimes, the courts and the new landlord database, yet many landlords look at this growing list of registration requirements, fees, compliance obligations and potentially significant fines—not to mention court delays—and wonder whether it is worth the candle to carry on renting out a property. What work has been undertaken to ensure administrative alignment between the redress scheme, the landlord database and local authority licensing schemes? In particular, what steps have been taken to prevent landlords from being required to pay multiple fees for systems and fill out multiple forms that, from their perspective, may appear to serve similar or overlapping purposes?

The private rented sector is already facing significant pressures. Landlords face rising costs, increasing regulatory obligations and continuing uncertainty about future reforms. In many parts of the country, they are leaving the sector altogether. A recent article for Landlord Knowledge estimated that there will be 220,000 fewer rented homes available by the end of this year; that is around 5% of the market. With Zoopla estimating that in 2024 there were 21 people chasing every rental home, the last thing prospective tenants need is fewer homes for rent.

I turn to the Government’s preference for a single approved redress scheme. There is clearly a need for balance: a single scheme would reduce confusion and increase consistency. However, without competitive pressure, there is less incentive to innovate, to improve customer service and to control costs. The Government have indicated that further schemes could be approved if necessary. Can the Minister elaborate on the circumstances in which that power might be exercised? What performance measures will be used to assess whether the designated scheme is delivering an acceptable service to both tenants and landlords? I would also welcome further clarification on the £25,000 compensation cap.

Finally, I will make a broader point. The vast majority of landlords are responsible individuals who provide good-quality accommodation and comply with their obligations. Public policy should be directed towards addressing poor practice and rogue operators, without creating a system that treats each landlord as a potential offender. The success of this scheme should be measured by whether it resolves disputes quickly, fairly and proportionately, while supporting a healthy and functioning sector. Its success should not be measured by the volume of complaints it processes or the number of enforcement actions it takes.

We support the principle of effective redress and recognise the need for tenants to have access to independent dispute resolution, but it is essential that this scheme is practical, proportionate and properly integrated into existing regulatory structures. As I said earlier, there is a shortage of rental homes. How will the Government ensure that this does not further decline? I hope that the Minister will provide reassurance on duplication, costs, administrative burdens and the interactions of the scheme with the wider reforms affecting the private rented sector. I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments and his very thoughtful questions, as ever, in relation to this instrument. I completely agree with his comment that it should be proportionate and workable in practice. He made a number of points around housing supply. We have made the biggest investment in a generation into affordable and social housing, and even yesterday there was talk of even further investment in that regard. It is important that we continue to focus on the housing supply question—he is quite right that we need to do that to make sure that the market is functioning effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister once or twice mentioned the biggest investment in social and affordable housing ever; I am curious about that. I know that the investment has been announced, and my understanding is that applications are now going through. It would be very much appreciated if the Minister could update us, either in written form or today, on when that money will actually be out of the door and being used.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to do that. The applications closed at the end of March, I think—somebody will correct me if that is not right—and are being considered now. As soon as the announcement is made, I am happy to update the House.

Motion agreed.