The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, not just for forwarding my mail when we get sent each other’s mail but for securing such an important debate and for what my noble friend Lady Warwick described as a comprehensive and forensic introduction. I am also grateful to the members of the Industry and Regulators Committee. This is a detailed and thoughtful report on the performance of the Building Safety Regulator. I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Roe, to Charlie Pugsley and the team at the Building Safety Regulator and to Mark Reynolds and the Construction Leadership Council. All have played a fundamental part in moving this issue forward significantly, partly as the committee was doing its work but also since the report was published.

I recognise much of what has been said today. I thank all noble Lords for their constructive contributions, as well as their recognition that progress is being made now. Of course, the 72 victims of Grenfell and the survivors sit at the heart of this issue. My noble friend Lord John rightly reminded us of the fire at Lakanal House in Southwark, where six people were killed and 20 were injured. We must always keep the lessons learned from those dreadful incidents, as well as how to take this issue forward in future, right at the heart of the issue.

The committee’s inquiry forms an important part of Parliament’s wider scrutiny of regulators. Its report is a timely and valuable assessment of whether the Building Safety Regulator has the capacity, the capability and the right approach needed to deliver the statutory functions effectively; as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, they were set out in the Building Safety Act. It has rightly examined how the regulator is operating in practice, how it is responding to early challenges and how it can continue to build confidence as the new regime matures. Since its establishment under the Building Safety Act, the BSR has been central to delivering post-Grenfell reforms and to restoring confidence in the safety of our built environment. There cannot be anything more distressing than not feeling that you are safe in your own home. At the heart of this work are the residents themselves, who rightly expect a regulatory regime that is rigorous in its standards but also clear, proportionate and effective in how it operates in practice. As my noble friend Lady Taylor and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, reminded us, this has also been a handbrake on the development that we need in this country.

Taken together, these points underline the scale of the task that the regulator was asked to take on and the importance of ensuring that it is properly supported to mature, adapt and improve over time. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roe for giving such a valuable insight into the role of the regulator, the situation as it was and the data emerging as improvement is made. This is vital in order to build public confidence and that of the industry.

The regulator now operates as a stand-alone organisation sponsored by the department, marking an important step towards reducing the fragmentation that was identified in the system in both the Hackitt review and the Grenfell reports. That has given the BSR, as a new organisation, greater operational flexibility and clearer accountability, while allowing it to focus on its core regulatory functions.

My noble friend Lady Taylor reminds us that public trust in the regime depends not just on its intent but on how clearly, consistently and efficiently it operates on the ground. That is why the department and the Building Safety Regulator have worked closely together to implement a substantial programme of operational reforms. I accept that the reforms took longer than anticipated to get going, but they are beginning now to deliver tangible improvements. Over the past 12 weeks, close to 10,000 homes have been approved, including more than 2,000 in London. Performance has improved markedly, with new-build approval rates rising to 90%, up from 33% in February. In April, the BSR also introduced an external remediation improvement plan, supported by updated guidance for existing higher-risk buildings, to accelerate the pace of remediation. Approval rates for remediation cases—I think my noble friend Lord Roe quoted this—rose to 79% in May, exceeding the 65% target.

It is also important to consider how improvements in regulatory performance sit alongside our wider objectives on housing delivery. Building safety and growth are not competing objectives; they are two sides of the same coin. Proportionate and effective regulation is essential both to ensuring that homes are built and remediated safely and to supporting housing delivery by reducing the risk of people remaining in unsafe ageing buildings or in temporary accommodation.

Against that backdrop, the Government welcome the committee’s recommendation and the challenge that it has provided in this area. We published our formal response in February this year, and we remain committed to continuing to improve the operation of the Building Safety Regulator. That includes listening carefully to feedback from residents, industry stakeholders, developers and Members of this House to ensure that the regime continues to evolve in a way that delivers safety, confidence and homes that people can trust.

I turn to some of the specific issues raised today, and I will set out how the Government are responding to some of those issues. My noble friend Lady Taylor and other noble Lords raised issues around the gateway 2 delays that we saw back in the day. As the committee highlighted, timely decision-making is critical, which is why we have focused on improving throughput at gateway 2. My noble friend is quite right: clarity of expectation for the industry is vital. The legacy gateway 2 new-build backlog has now been cleared, down from 103 cases in September 2025. New-build applications are being approved within 22 weeks on average by the innovation unit, compared with 37 weeks in July 2025. As set out by my noble friend Lord Roe, that balance is being achieved by working with developers.

Early expectations on BSR approval timelines were set before operational capacity and system maturity were fully established. It is key to say that things have moved on since then, and the BSR strategic plan now sets a clear and deliverable trajectory towards 18-week determinations. The focus now is on embedding these improvements so that stronger performance at gateway 2 is sustained. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, mentioned risk in development. He is right that we must try to get through the process of assessing and dealing with risk as quickly as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also mentioned gateway 3 approvals. Gateway 3 is still relatively new and only a small number of projects have reached that stage, but it is a critical final check before the occupation of higher-risk buildings. The Building Safety Regulator is ensuring that regulatory scrutiny is front-loaded at gateway 2, but the learning is helping developers and the Building Safety Regulator refine the gateway 3 process, improving consistency and efficiency while maintaining a firm focus on resident safety. The peril here is that I am looking at the chair of the Building Safety Regulator to make sure of what I am saying. He is nodding.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the review of the higher-risk regime, including the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord John. We have acted on the committee’s recommendation to review the higher risk building control regime to make sure that it is proportionate for lower risk and routine works. We consulted on how building work to existing buildings should be categorised under the higher-risk regime, ensuring that the information submitted to the regulator is proportionate to the scale and nature of the work while maintaining safety standards. That included proposals to reduce documentation requirements for building work within individual flats and for small-scale works in communal areas of existing higher-risk buildings. The consultation has now closed and we are carefully considering its responses. I hope it will enable a more proportionate response.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to the building professions, trades and occupations. Having the skills to do this work is vital. To support this, on 26 March the Government announced a £70 million investment to address shortages in building inspectors and fire engineers—the largest investment in these vital safety professions for generations. This sits alongside the wider construction skills package, to which the Government committed £625 million to improve training quality and to recruit an additional 60,000 skilled construction workers by 2028. We are committed to working with the sector to publish a new long-term strategy for building professions, which will carry out a system-wide review of regulation competence and culture, including the creation of a new central oversight function. On 20 May, we launched a call for evidence on this. I encourage all those interested to respond by the deadline of 12 August.

I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Roe, talk about the engagement that has taken place with the industry, because I know this came out clearly in the committee’s report. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, spoke about the quality of applications, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to this. We have worked very closely with industry, including through the Construction Leadership Council, to improve the quality of applications and strengthen that two-way engagement. As noble Lords have rightly said, this is a two-way process. Alongside this, the BSR has published a comprehensive suite of guidance, both directly and with industry partners, covering building control approvals, application requirements and key stages such as completion. This has been supported by wider resources including webinars and practical materials to help duty holders understand and meet their obligations. We think this is now driving significant improvement in the quality of remediation and new-build applications.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, spoke powerfully about the phasing of decision-making around less high-risk buildings and the noble Lord, Lord John, spoke about consistency in decision-making. The BSR is now taking a more structured and consistent approach to decision-making, including through that clearer guidance, stronger quality assurance and greater engagement with industry. This is improving the predictability of gateway decisions, which will be critical, and maintaining a robust and proportionate safety regime with a shared expectation that applications will meet the required standard.

On reporting transparency, the noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Taylor, raised issues about the BSR reaching its KPIs. The noble Lord, Lord John, referred to the BSR saying that it felt that it could not comply, in the early days. I hope we have moved on from that now.

Transparency and regular reporting are critical so that Parliament and the industry can track performance and understand how the regime is operating in practice. For this reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Roe, said, the Building Safety Regulator now publishes monthly data on building control approval applications, covering both new-build and remediation activity. That regular publication helps provide visibility of volumes, progress and trends, and supports scrutiny of improvements over time. The Building Safety Regulator is under a statutory duty to publish a strategic plan setting out its priorities, and, as a new arm’s-length body, it will also publish an annual report and accounts to provide transparent reporting on its performance.

A number of key issues were raised around construction products—an issue about which I personally feel extremely strongly. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Jamieson, all raised this issue. The committee was clear that long-standing weaknesses in the construction products regime must be addressed to close the regulatory gaps and restore confidence that the products we see on the market are safe. For that reason, we published a construction products White Paper in February this year, outlining proposals for ambitious, system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime.

The systemic dishonesty in continuing to market the dangerous products we all know about now, when their failings were well known throughout the industry, was disgraceful. Confidence must now be restored. That cannot wait any longer; we have to tackle this product-related harm. The White Paper delivers: a path to implementing a new general safety requirement to bring unregulated products into scope more quickly; a step change in product information, testing standards, certification oversight and digitisation so that those installing and using products can rely on clear and trustworthy information; a coherent regulatory framework; and a system that incentivises safety while supporting innovation, enabling the industry to grow with confidence. The White Paper and general safety requirement consultations have now closed, and our reform proposals will help build renewed confidence and trust in the construction product sector for residents—and the industry, because working with unsafe products affects not just residents but the people who work in the industry.

The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Best, raised issues around under 11-metre buildings. Buildings that have fewer than five storeys or are below 11 metres are not within scope of the leaseholder protections introduced by the Building Safety Act, but we recognise the concerns raised by leaseholders who fall outside these protections. The Government are actively considering how we can go further to support those affected. In line with the remediation acceleration plan, we are committed to providing targeted funding in limited circumstances through a small fund for the remediation of cladding in buildings under 11 metres. Further details of the scheme design and how it will operate will be set out in July ahead of the Summer Recess.

I welcome the comments from the noble Lady, Baroness Taylor of Bolton, and others about the steps that have already been taken towards the single construction regulator. In December, we published the prospectus and the consultation. We are now analysing the responses to that consultation and will publish a response this summer. The Building Safety Regulator’s functions will form a key foundation of a single construction regulator, with changes carefully phased to avoid disruption. Primary legislation is required to implement several proposals; we will bring forward that necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, rightly raised the issue of the regulator’s costs. Detailed costs will be set out in due course as we finalise the design and funding model for the regulator. Our priority will be to ensure that it has the resources to be effective while keeping costs proportionate. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of a review of the new regulator to make sure that we do not end up with something that is not working being allowed to carry on. We are considering the responses to the consultation. We expect the regulator to be introduced on a phased basis, but I assure the Committee that we are aware of the need for an early assessment of how it is working; that will be put in place.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the pace of remediation and the delays in implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, rightly raised the issues around how this is taking effect in the social housing sector. Back in December 2024, we launched our remediation acceleration plan, and, in July 2025, we set out further steps, including the intention to bring forward primary legislation and more than £1 billion in new investment to speed up the remediation of social housing, giving social landlords equal access to government funding schemes with immediate effect. We are working with the BSR to establish a new remediation enforcement unit focused on buildings with unsafe cladding that are 18 metres and above. The noble Baronesses, Lady Harding and Lady Warwick, reminded us of the impact on leaseholders, which is certainly part of the Government’s considerations.

Since April 2024, we have also invested £39 million to strengthen regulatory capacity across local authorities, fire and rescue services and metro mayors, supporting the Building Safety Regulator to hold those responsible for remediation to account. Nearly nine years on from Grenfell, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. We will shortly bring forward the remediation of unsafe cladding Bill, which will drive forward cladding remediation and ensure that those responsible for the cladding safety crisis pay towards fixing the problem they caused. We will introduce a new legal duty to remediate, requiring those responsible to assess their buildings and promptly fix unsafe cladding, or face criminal prosecution. When they do not, a new remediation backstop will allow a third party to step in and carry out the work. Every building made safe means fewer families left waiting and real progress towards helping people move on with their lives.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised the cost of the building regime—an important issue that I will cover briefly. The committee raised concerns about the cost impacts of the building safety regime and the importance of ensuring that fees are fair, transparent and linked to improve performance. The Building Safety Regulator’s fees and charges are set in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance and operate on a cost-recovery basis. Any changes to fees would need to be considered carefully, alongside wider efforts to improve system capacity, efficiency and the consistency of decision-making. Should future changes be made, the Government will take into account the committee’s recommendations as part of their wider assessment of what the options might be.

I hope that I have covered the points made by noble Lords. In conclusion, the Government remain firmly committed to a building safety regime that is both robust and proportionate and which protects residents, maintains confidence and supports the delivery of safe homes. The committee’s recommendations have provided a valuable challenge and clear focus on what matters most: safety, consistency, transparency and delivery in practice. As I have set out today, we have already taken significant steps to strengthen the operation of the higher risk regime, and we will continue to refine it where necessary to make sure that it works effectively for residents and the sector.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for securing this debate, and to all noble Lords who have contributed, and I thank the committee for its very careful and constructive work. I look forward to continuing the dialogue as we work collectively to make sure that the building safety system delivers for residents and the wider sector for the long term.

Affordable Housing: Young People

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government have committed to delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation, and young people will benefit from this. The £39 billion social and affordable homes programme aims to deliver around 300,000 new social and affordable homes, including at least 60% for social rent. For young people renting, the Renters’ Rights Act has capped rent in advance and ended unfair bidding wars and no-fault evictions. I am also working with the sector to simplify the buying and selling process and make that more accessible.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her positive response, but—and it is a big but—how does the £39 billion pot actually help if, on the one hand, as charities tell us, her departmental bidding processes and rules exclude, in effect, the smaller youth charities from actually applying for grants and building vital transitional and move-on accommodation for young people, but, on the other hand, the Government’s own planning guidance lacks the strength and clarity to allow planners to give permission for what is becoming known as the stepping-stone accommodation model, to enable the building of such accommodation? Please could the Minister look into both these obstacles, currently mentioned by the charities, to ensure that these smaller providers can actually deliver the affordable homes that young people need and can afford?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns, and I welcomed the opportunity to speak to her on this matter during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act; I subsequently went to visit one of the schemes she had mentioned to me. The nationally described space standard sets minimum standards for internal floor space of new dwellings and is suitable for application across all tenures, but that standard is not mandatory, and it is at the discretion of local planning authorities to adopt it locally by reference to the standard in their local plan policies. As part of our consultation on updates to the National Planning Policy Framework, we have sought views on whether changes are needed to make sure that affordable fixed-term accommodation, such as stepping-stone accommodation, is better supported, with particular reference to space standards. We are in the process of analysing the responses to that and we will be confirming our response in due course.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely; I invite the noble Lord to speak.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, with land plots for housing often exceeding the cost of home construction, does that factor alone not act as a real disincentive to the development of housing for sale at realistic, affordable prices? Why do we not establish a study into the relationship between land pricing and housing development costs? The study could consider proposals for building on land acquired at agricultural prices and sold under new forms of housing registration and land title arrangements, but which, at the same time, with other measures, could protect investment in existing freehold.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. We continually look at issues around the viability of building and are working very closely, with both the development sector and our local authorities, to make sure that land pricing and other issues around viability are taken into account. The £39 billion we have put into social and affordable housing will make sure that we can give some support to those who are trying desperately to get some social housing built in the country; we continue to work with them on that. The bold planning reforms we have introduced will also assist with that process.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, young people are paying more in rent than they are on a mortgage, and so they would not need to join the queue for affordable housing if they had some help with a deposit. I put again to the Minister the question I posed to her in April, when she conceded that there was more work to be done. What progress has she been able to make in discussions with the developers, the financial institutions and the Treasury to bring forward a successor to the Help to Buy scheme, on which the then Government made a profit of £1.4 billion last time?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

A detailed analysis has been done of the Help to Buy scheme, and we will learn lessons from it. We will not reintroduce it as it was, but I agree with the noble Lord that, for many young people renting property, their rent is higher than a mortgage payment would be. Since I gave him my previous answer, I have been working with the sector. A wide variety of mortgage products are available in the UK, including a range of products available at a high loan-to-value ratio, such as 95% and even 100%. I met the Building Societies Association last week, and it is very keen to offer more innovative products that can help first-time buyers, including some that take account of a track record of paying rent, as they deal with a mortgage application. These are innovative systems. We know that many first-time buyers are not aware of the mortgage products that may help them, so we are working on a communications campaign. The Building Societies Association is doing its own, and the Government will also do something to make people aware of the steps they can take to get on to the housing ladder.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is now a brilliant new way of helping young people get the accommodation they need: intergenerational housing? Pioneered by the Phoenix Community Housing association in Lewisham, in schemes involving apartments for older people, a proportion are allocated to young people, who, in return for an affordable rent, provide social amenities, services and help with IT for the older people in the same scheme. Will she encourage Homes England to do more of these fantastic schemes that help both young and old together?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that such intergenerational schemes work exceptionally well, and I thank him for sharing the information on the initiative in Lewisham. The Government have committed to delivering this biggest boost to social and affordable housing, to make sure that everyone, including younger people, have access to safe, decent and affordable homes. To achieve that ambition, we will rely on both housing associations and councils across the country delivering the kind of ambition and innovation that the noble Lord discussed. I look forward to hearing about more schemes such as Phoenix Community Housing; it is great to have generations working together on their housing.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, young people under 35 who require support for their housing get only the shared accommodation rate of benefits, yet they are often disproportionately the people who have mental health concerns or other issues. Does the Minister agree that this needs looking into to ensure that the most vulnerable young people are not the ones who are pushed to the bottom of the housing situation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The allocation of funding for the DWP is a bit out of my housing remit, but I know that my noble friend who just answered the first Oral Question will have that in the forefront of her mind. As we deal with the situation around vulnerable young people, adequate housing is an absolutely fundamental building block of making sure that we set young people off on the right road from the very start. We will be working with colleagues in the DWP to make sure that we tackle the issues that prove to be barriers to young people entering housing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, where proceeds of right to buy are used to build a new social home, the council housing waiting list reduces and a family has the opportunity to have their own affordable social home. Does the Minister agree that the Government should support and encourage strategies that provide more homes and reduce council housing waiting lists?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It was right-to-buy policies over the last 14 years which diminished the stock of social housing. So, while I agree with the noble Lord, I do not think that the right solution was brought forward. The Social Housing Bill that is currently before the House will change the right-to-buy scheme so that we enable more of the funding for right to buy to go back into the properties. We have now allocated 100%, so that local authorities can have 100% of the funding, and we will reform the whole right-to-buy scheme to deliver a fairer, better-value and more sustainable scheme. We want a scheme that will help long-standing tenants to buy their own homes, but we also need to protect much-need social housing stock and ensure that more homes are built than lost. That is what we are doing with the Bill. We will make sure that when a local authority builds a new house, it is exempted from right to buy for 35 years, so that councils have the confidence to invest for the future.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, speaking of innovation, Green Party-led Bristol City Council has had some success in creating housing for younger people by using ownership co-operatives and co-housing schemes. Is that something that the Government are looking into and perhaps encouraging in Labour-led councils?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are a number of successful co-operative housing schemes across the country. The commonhold and leasehold Bill, which we will bring forward later this year, will have steps in it to ensure that we make it easier for these kinds of innovative housing approaches to take place.

Local Councillors: Recruitment, Retention and Well-being

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate. I am very grateful to my friend and my noble friend Lord Forbes for securing the debate and to all noble Lords for some very powerful contributions this afternoon.

First, let me be absolutely clear that abuse and intimidation of local councillors, whether online or in person, are totally unacceptable. I am going to briefly outline some of my own experiences, because they are relevant. Throughout my time as a councillor, particularly as leader of the council, I experienced constant abuse on social media, as many other council leaders do. I had fictional accounts of meetings with me published online, which were very difficult to deal with, and online misinformation about members of my family, which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to. While I will put up with a lot myself, I do not think families should have to put up with this kind of treatment.

Lastly, I was a victim of a terrible incident that resulted in a court case. I have mentioned that simply because this is not just about the standards system or the policing system; it is also about the criminal justice system. If you feel victimised again when you get into the criminal justice system, that system is not working properly. So be assured that this Government will crack down on abuse in whatever form it takes—whether directed at an elected representative, a candidate or a campaigner.

Examples of abhorrent behaviour that councillors have been subjected to were given powerfully by my noble friend Lord Forbes, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Sahota, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Shah and Lady Wilcox. The particularly excruciating examples of racism given by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, really strike home. The tales of terrible abuse on doorsteps given by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, are blood-curdling and chilling. All the cases that have recently been picked up by the media are so disturbing. We have some very brave people in local government who continue in their roles, in spite of what we hear about.

The Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis, in his March statement on the Defending Democracy Taskforce, has already put on record the Government’s view that

“we must challenge at every turn, the notion that abuse, threats and intimidation are now an inevitability for those working in politics and public life”.

Nor should we tolerate incitement to violence or normalise it as part of our political discourse. These actions, and those who choose to perpetrate them, fundamentally undermine our democracy, and we should not tolerate it. We have a clear responsibility to protect and strengthen our democracy. Local government is the grass roots of this democracy and will thrive if conditions are right for talented people to feel confident to come forward and stand for public office.

Of the 136 councils that held elections in May, 79 changed control. Many newly elected councillors have likely got their first taste of the cut and thrust of front-line political life—I hope it has not been a painful one for them. A robust exchange of views is one thing—democracy thrives on lively debate—but, given the evidence that online and in-person abuse is on the increase, we must ensure that the expression of strongly held views does not sink into divisive and toxic conflict, personal abuse, threats and intimidation. We stand shoulder to shoulder with local government on this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, we must not allow this toxic discourse to become normalised. As the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, outlined, these actions can have a fundamental and dangerous impact on decision-making, with people not wanting to take the decisions they know are right for fear of reprisals.

Let me move on to what the Government have done and will be doing in relation to my noble friend’s Question for Short Debate. I will try to address as many of the points that have been raised in the debate as time allows.

First, Operation Ford and the Defending Democracy Taskforce were discussed by my noble friend Lord Forbes, the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, the noble Lord, Lord Mott, and others. We have committed funding as part of the Defending Democracy Policing Protocol to Operation Ford. This places a dedicated elected official adviser in every police force to provide security briefings and work with local authorities to co-ordinate appropriate security support where a heightened risk is identified. We must make sure there is a consistent and reliable response. I will take this back and find out what measures are being taken to ensure that this is not a patchwork across the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, both raised different issues about how we ensure that we have free speech. Freedom of expression and the right to protest are fundamental parts of a healthy democracy, and they are protected under law. The measures we are pursuing apply only to criminal intimidation or harassment, not to legitimate disagreement, protest or campaigning. It is important that we make that distinction. We are determined to ensure that people are not put off from campaigning and standing for public office, and we will continue to safeguard the strong legal protections on freedom of speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others referred to the LGA survey, from which there was a very worrying and concerning set of outputs. I am pleased that, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, we have now put beyond doubt that a councillor’s home address should not be published by default. In practice, this means home addresses are not published unless the member requests it. This small but vital legislative change will help ensure that local councillors and their families can at least feel more secure in their homes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and others raised the issue of electoral reform. We are taking decisive action to tackle the harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners. We are changing the law so that those convicted of intimidating or abusing electoral staff can be disqualified from seeking or holding elected office. This will bring electoral staff under the same protection already given to candidates, campaigners and elected representatives under the Elections Act 2022. The Representation of the People Bill will allow tougher sentences for those who abuse candidates, campaigners, elected representatives and electoral staff. In addition, we will remove the requirement for election agents, including candidates acting as their own agents, to have home addresses published on the notice of election agents.

Local government standards reform is a key issue, which was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Forbes and the noble Baronesses, Lady Shah and Lady Wilcox. The Government will reform the local government standards and conduct framework. In my brief I have the civil servant phrase, “as soon as parliamentary time allows”, but please be assured, colleagues, that I understand the importance of this and will be championing it to get it as soon as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, clearly illustrated the need for that in his very powerful contribution.

We consulted last year on a suite of proposals and published the response in November. The overarching aim of the reforms is to strengthen ethical standards in every type and tier of local government. We will also make sure that authorities have the right levers to deal with misconduct swiftly, fairly and transparently. I have very much taken on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, about the devolved Administrations. We will liaise with our colleagues on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans, gave us the illustration of an experience in Basra; we need to act now to stop the slide into instability. I was with a group of planning officers this morning. If ever a group of council officers suffer this kind of harassment, it is our planning officers. That has to stop. They need to be able to do their job and their consultations without risking harassment and intimidation and be able to make decisions according to law and their professional expertise without fear of harassment.

In conclusion, I reassure the Committee that I and this Government are committed to doing all we can to prevent abusive, intimidatory and threatening behaviours. For democracy to thrive, we need to make sure that we attract the widest range of people to seek to serve their communities. They should be able to do so without fear of intimidation or abuse. This is a shared responsibility that we must all embrace. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said that serving as a councillor is the gateway to serving our community. I completely agree. As the Security Minister set out to the House on 12 March, we must draw a clear line together; by leading with respect, calling out unacceptable behaviour and working collectively, we can ensure that our politics remains open, resilient and worthy of public trust. I thank all noble Lords across the Committee for their contributions to this important debate. I look forward to working with them all as we move this forward.

Donations to Political Parties

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to tighten the rules regarding donations to political parties.

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

My Lords, foreign interference is a threat to our democracy. That is why we are currently legislating to tighten the rules on who can make political donations and strengthening checks on and the transparency of those donations. We are also acting on the recommendations of Philip Rycroft’s independent review into foreign financial interference. We are capping donations from overseas electors and bringing forward a moratorium on crypto asset donations. We will issue a full response to the Rycroft report in due course.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that really helpful Answer. I agree with everything that she has said. However, will she now consider tightening the rules on the expenditure of Short money which is allocated specifically to opposition parties at Westminster? If there is any misspending of that money, who is responsible for dealing with it? Is it the Public Accounts Committee or the Government? Does she agree with me that whoever it is should be dealing with it as a matter of urgency?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is important that any money spent from the public purse is spent in a way that commands the confidence of the public. It is critical that processes are in place to monitor that spending and to make sure that it is used for the purposes it is there for. It is critical that it is properly and legally audited, so that we can all be assured of that. One of the big problems we have in the political world is an undermining of confidence in the political system. That is not helped when people do not have confidence in the financial systems that surround it. Those things are really important, and we continue to keep them under review.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

If the Government consider making any changes to Short money, will the Minister make them retrospective for the last 10 years?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The allocation of Short money is beyond my ministerial brief, but all parties must think when they are in government about the proposals around Short money.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, under the Government’s current plans, Donald Trump could split ownership of a UK company between himself and his family members, keeping each individual share below the threshold that would trigger the significant control test in the Representation of the People Bill that is coming our way. That would then enable the company to legally donate to UK politicians or political parties, and indeed any foreign dictator or billionaire with family members could do exactly the same. Does the Minister agree that that is a dangerous and unwelcome loophole that needs to be closed?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not want to comment on such donations, particularly from the President of the United States’s family. However, we are taking immediate steps to implement Philip Rycroft’s recommendation for a cap on donations made by overseas electors. We will implement that through the Representation of the People Bill which is currently before Parliament—it is at Report stage in the Commons at the moment. We are committed to upholding and strengthening our democracy by protecting against this kind of foreign interference, improving political transparency and adding tougher checks for donations. However, it is the responsibility of receiving parties as well to carry out the necessary checks involved. I hope that all responsible parties will take their part in doing so.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, if we are concerned about preventing foreign interference and plugging loopholes, as I think we all are, will my noble friend the Minister consider personal donations—small change such as £5 million to a particular Member of Parliament, for example—and foreign money to UK think tanks that are really quite political in their activities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

With any donations, it is for those receiving them to make sure they are clear about where those donations come from and what they are for. There are investigations currently going on by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as we know, so it is probably best that I do not comment specifically on those. Everyone must stop and think about how these donations are used and donated. We need to make sure that the rules that are set for political donations apply to everybody involved in political life, and that there are no exemptions for anybody.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, while the independent Rycroft review consulted political parties on political donations, the Government have singularly failed to do so. Why did Ministers fail to consult the Parliamentary Parties Panel on these measures?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that there was extensive consultation with political parties during the course of the drawing up of the Bill. The Bill is being debated in Parliament now, and representations can still be made in Parliament. It will be debated in this House in due course.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, how are the Government going to get at the increasingly shadowy area of what the Minister has just called political life, where donations are not specifically to political parties but are being used to support particular causes? It is widely reported, for example, that Elon Musk is using Twitter to promote the Restore candidate in the forthcoming by-election and to support Restore altogether. Is that a political donation? At the Unite the Kingdom rally, Tommy Robinson specifically thanked two US donors who had helped to fund the rally. That is not, within the current terms, a political donation, but it is clearly financial interference in British political life. How are we going to get at that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Lord indicated, this is a complex area, but we must endeavour to make sure that, as we pass the legislation, we close loopholes that allow donations that are not subject to the usual checks and balances—they must be subject to those checks and balances. We intend to commence existing provisions in primary legislation that will require donors to declare any benefits or sources of funding connected to their donation and render them liable to criminal prosecution for false declarations. We need to go that far to make sure that we avoid the kind of circumstances that the noble Lord raised.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my friends in the Liberal Democrats talk about money from America. Unfortunately, we in Northern Ireland have been dealing with money from America for quite some time, which is coming to Sinn Féin through the Irish Republic. Will that be dealt with in the legislation? It gives an unfair advantage to Sinn Féin in elections in Northern Ireland, whether it is standing for the UK Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will probably be more aware than I am, donations from Ireland are permitted in some circumstances. I will take back the issue she raised. It is important that all donations to all political parties are subject to the same legal requirements, and that is what the Representation of the People Bill is seeking to achieve.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the present system has some controls during an election period but then, in a non-election period, there seems to be very little control, with one right-wing individual donating £10 million to one political party. Will the review deal with this issue?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are still assessing the Rycroft review, which comments extensively on the evolving threat posed by political interference to British democracy. We will publish a full response to the Rycroft review in due course, but we have taken immediate steps in the Bill to implement the recommendation for a cap on donations made by overseas electors.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

In the light of the various issues that have been raised today, can the Minister say whether the Government would reconsider, and possibly put some amendments to, the Bill?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It would be a very strange Bill that came before this House without any amendments, in my experience. However, we have endeavoured to structure the Bill to deal with many of the issues around donations that have been raised over the past couple of years. I hope that, when it is debated here, Members will take the opportunity to see just how extensive this legislation is and how far it goes. If further issues are thrown up by the Rycroft review, we will endeavour to make sure that they are incorporated as quickly as possible.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the term political donations is misleading. This is really about political corruption. The donors are buying power and influence, subverting public choices, getting government contracts, et cetera. Simply capping it does not end political corruption. The only way forward is to criminalise the receipt and payment of political donations, because no ordinary person can play this game.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have said to my noble friend before that I do not always share his conspiracy-theory approach to life. However, the new legislation will introduce “know your donor” schemes, where recipients of donations over £11,180 will be required to consider the risk of those donations being from illegitimate sources, to prevent the risk of foreign interference. There are serious penalties where those laws are not followed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is exactly what the Representation of the People Bill will attempt to do; it will make sure that we are clear about how donations to political parties should work. We will debate this in due course and, I am sure, at great length in this House. It is important that the public can have confidence in how this system is working.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, immediately prior to the last general election, the then government party decided to increase the maximum expenditure by political parties standing in every seat in Great Britain by 80%, increasing the amount of money that could be spent from around £20 million to £36 million. It did not do it any good. Should we not now reverse that increase, which invites massive donations from sources that political parties find hard to check the origins of?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We are introducing tougher rules on political donations to protect UK elections. The limits have changed because circumstances change. That is an important part of the system. We have to strike the right balance between safeguarding against foreign interference and making sure that legitimate donors can continue to fund election campaigns.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Further to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that those who make political donations should be criminalised, hundreds of thousands of people in this country subscribe to their political parties because they share their values. Surely that should be encouraged and not criminalised.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord—and not for the first time. It is important that people are not only able to donate to a political party if it meets their values, principles and objectives for our country but that they can be absolutely reassured that that money is used in a legitimate way by political parties for their aims and can have confidence in the system that that is the case.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I am in favour of the legislation that we will be planning. Does the Minister think that it would be a good idea to look at the PPERA and ensure that the rules are strict enough that every party’s accounts are properly audited and are accurate?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I am sure that Mr Rycrotft, in his extensive review of the electoral system, took that into account. Having been a member of a political party for a long time, I know that the auditing process is an important part of the system. We all want to make sure that that works properly for political parties, as it should do in all parts of public life.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, suggested that those seeking to influence policy through donations are guilty of some sort of corruption. Does the Minister agree that that is an incorrect characterisation and that the law should apply equally, not just to private individuals and businesses but to unions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The law applies to all those who donate to political parties, and it is right and proper that it does. As I said, I do not agree with my noble friend’s characterisation that all donations are potentially corrupt. However, where they are corrupt, it is important that the system can deal with that effectively and has proper sanctions to make sure that we deter those who would try to use their own personal money to corrupt our democracy.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. That does now conclude the Private Notice Question.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this Second Reading on the Social Housing Bill. I look forward to listening carefully to noble Lords’ contributions from across the House. I am particularly conscious that many in this Chamber bring deep experience of housing, local government, safeguarding and the realities facing communities. I therefore would like to begin by recognising the value that this experience brings to our debate and thanking noble Lords for giving the Bill the attention that it warrants.

Before I turn to the detail, I hope the House will allow me a brief personal reflection, because this Bill is really personal for me. This legislation is not abstract; I grew up in Stevenage in social housing. In those days, before everyone carried a phone in their pocket, before the internet shaped the world—I should add that not even every house had a phone; I am that old—and before cars were widely affordable, community was the bedrock of our lives. Part of the unwritten contract for my parents when they accepted the offer of a job and a home in Britain’s first post-war new town, which is 80 years old this year, was that their parents would be welcome when they retired and that their children could, if they wished, be housed as children of tenants.

One of the great strengths of living in Stevenage was the sense of continuity and belonging that it offered. Families put down roots, your parents could live nearby and, in time, you could imagine your own children building their lives in the same area with the possibility, if they needed it, of a secure, affordable home in the community they knew. That sense of security—that social housing could be there not only for you but for the next generation—is part of what social housing at its best can provide: stability, dignity and the foundation on which people can build a life.

Amidst the complexities of modern life and the cost of living crisis, retaining that sense of community is more important than ever. Yet for too many people, it is no longer something they can rely on. In Stevenage, the housing stock has fallen from around 32,000 homes in the 1980s to around 8,000 today, and many former council homes are now let to those on universal credit, costing the public purse more than double when compared with a council home and leaving over 2,000 families stranded on waiting lists. This is a picture that we see around the country.

Over time, social and affordable homes have become scarce. In many places, homes sold have not been replaced. The result is that families who could once have lived side by side, in the same town and neighbourhood, are now too often separated by necessity and forced to move far from the support networks they depend on. That is one of the reasons I care so deeply about this Bill. It is about restoring a sense of security and fairness for tenants today and for communities tomorrow. Everyone deserves to live somewhere decent, safe, secure and affordable, in a community where they feel at home.

That is why the social housing sector plays such a critical role in our system, providing a home to around 16% of all households in England and supporting many of the most vulnerable, including those on the lowest incomes and those living with long-term illness or disability. Yet, for many, that security is out of reach. Today, more than 1.3 million households are on local authority waiting lists for social housing and over 175,000 children are growing up without a stable home. Families are left with little prospect of secure housing in their community. They are forced instead into the increasingly expensive and insecure private rented sector or into temporary accommodation at significant personal cost and growing expense to the public purse.

This country has not built enough social and affordable housing for decades. While nearly one in three new homes in recent years has been social or affordable, overall delivery remains far below the historic highs of the 1950s and 1960s, when housing was delivered at a far greater scale. This decline reflects a combination of factors over recent years. including lower levels of public investment, constraints on providers’ ability to borrow and invest, and wider economic pressures, such as inflation, which have increased the cost of building and maintaining homes. At the same time, the steady and significant loss of social housing stock, particularly where homes sold under right to buy have not been replaced, has further undermined the ability and confidence of providers to invest in building the new homes that communities so urgently need.

The Government therefore placed social and affordable housing at the heart of our manifesto. We have been clear that addressing these long-standing challenges requires not just incremental change but a sustained programme of renewal, bringing together investment, reform and delivery across the sector. The priority of this Government remains to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation, alongside a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. The delivery of these commitments is well under way.

In 2025, we set out a clear five-step plan to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing. First, we are delivering the biggest boost to grant funding in a generation through the £39 billion 10-year social and affordable homes programme to support social housebuilding at scale. Secondly, we are rebuilding the sector’s capacity to borrow and invest, supported by a stable 10-year rent settlement. Thirdly, we have established a more effective and stable regulatory regime by updating the decent homes standard, implementing new minimum energy-efficiency standards, and the passing of Awaab’s law to drive up the safety and quality of homes for tenants. Fourthly, we are reinvigorating council housebuilding, which this Bill directly supports, recognising the central role of councils in social housing delivery. Fifthly and finally, we are strengthening our partnership with providers and investors to unlock capacity and accelerate delivery, and with tenants themselves to guide our reforms—including addressing the social housing stigma that tenants highlight as a key priority.

This Bill forms one targeted part of this wider programme of renewal, making the necessary legislative changes to underpin our reforms. We have already given social housing providers the long-term certainty and stability they need to dial up their housebuilding ambitions, through grant funding, long-term certainty about their incomes, clear and final quality standards, and specialised support for councils. We now need to deliver the parts of our decade of renewal plan which require primary legislation. The Bill will protect the number of social homes available to those in need and, in doing so, incentivise the building of more social rented homes. It will create a fairer system, with stronger protections for tenants who are victims of domestic abuse. It will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and clarify the statute book so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.

Taking each of these objectives in turn, I turn first to protecting homes and enabling new supply. Right to buy has long provided an important route into home ownership, helping many social housing tenants achieve greater security and a tangible stake in their community. Since its introduction, it has supported more than 2 million households to buy their homes and realise the benefits of home ownership. But—and this a very big “but”—too often the homes sold have not been replaced. This has led to a steady loss of social housing stock, reduced the availability of genuinely affordable homes, and weakened councils’ confidence and capacity to invest in new supply, particularly where homes are sold and do not return to the sector.

It cannot make sense for a council to invest in building a new home and then for a qualifying right-to-buy tenant to move in and purchase that home for significantly less than it cost to build. The Bill therefore builds on the existing tranche of reforms that the Government have already made to the right-to-buy scheme. The measures will continue the mission to deliver a fairer and more sustainable scheme, one that continues to support long-standing tenants to buy while ensuring that councils can replace what is sold and better protect existing social homes to meet future housing need. We will increase the eligibility period from three years of tenancy to 10 years, which better reflects current practice and ensures that the scheme is targeted at those with a long-standing connection to their home. We will also better align discounts with cash caps and introduce a 35-year exemption for new-build homes, protecting new supply and giving councils the confidence to invest in homes for the long term.

Alongside this, the Bill introduces a new requirement for private providers of social housing to notify their local authority and other potential buyers before selling a home. This will maximise opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector. Taken together, these reforms will shift the trajectory of the system from one where stock has been gradually depleted to one where it is protected and can begin to grow again. These measures are not about undermining aspiration but about ensuring that it is delivered in a way that is fair, balanced and sustainable, so that future generations have the same opportunities as those before them. They are designed to ensure that the sector is larger in the future, not smaller, and more capable of meeting need, not less.

Secondly, on the protection of tenants who are victims of domestic abuse, all tenants deserve safety and stability but those experiencing abuse face acute risks and, too often, must choose between staying in their home and continuing to suffer that abuse, or leaving and risking homelessness. The Bill strengthens protections to help victims remain safely in their homes where possible or move to suitable alternative accommodation where necessary. These measures form part of the Government’s wider commitment to tackle violence against women and girls, ensuring that the housing system supports rather than frustrates a victim’s route to safety and recovery. This sits alongside wider government action to improve quality standards, strengthen tenant voice and ensure that the sector works in the interests of those it serves.

Thirdly, the Bill reduces unnecessary bureaucracy and clarifies the statute book, enabling councils and providers to invest with confidence. It repeals unimplemented and unworkable provisions from previous housing legislation, including requirements to sell high-value homes, impose fixed-term tenancies by default and charge higher rents to higher-income tenants. It also streamlines the outdated consents process so that councils can make more decisions about the management of their social homes without having to get approval first. These changes bring clarity and reduce barriers to delivery, setting up the social housing system for the ambitious future we are working towards.

Social housing is an essential part of a functioning housing system. It provides security for families, supports communities, reduces homelessness pressures and, when done well, represents good value for the taxpayer over the long term. This Bill is a vital part of our reforms, but legislation alone cannot deliver the decade of renewal we want to see across the quality and supply of social housing. As I have said, this Bill is one targeted part of a comprehensive and ambitious plan that the Government are already delivering through record investment into new social housing; through new modern and robust standards to improve housing quality and safety and to strengthen tenant engagement and landlord accountability; and through working with the regulator and the sector to ensure that the system is stable and investible. Ultimately, the Bill is grounded in the everyday reality of families who need secure homes, in the practical requirements of councils and providers that need certainty to build so that future tenants can access social homes, and in the principle that the state has a responsibility to ensure that safe, secure and affordable housing is available to those who need it.

In the course of this debate, I know that noble Lords will rightly scrutinise the detail—how reforms are implemented, how we safeguard fairness and how we ensure that the sector can deliver—and I welcome that scrutiny. But I hope that the House will also recognise the central purpose of this Bill: to strengthen tenant protections for victims of domestic abuse, to clear away barriers that prevent investment and delivery, and to protect and grow the social housing available across the country. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this very thoughtful and constructive debate. As ever, there has been an incredibly wide range of experience and insight brought by this House, and I really welcome the scrutiny given to the Bill today. The debate has covered a varied range of issues, and I will do my best to respond to as many of those issues as I can in the time allowed—but I assure noble Lords that I will check Hansard at the end, and if there is anything I do not get the chance to respond to, I will reply in writing.

I want to give one piece of statistical information in relation to the impact of the Bill. Under the previous pre-reform baseline, the system was projected to deliver a net loss of around 26,000 homes between 2026 and 2036 due to right-to-buy sales. By contrast, following implementation of the measures in the Bill, we expect to see a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period. I hope it will be many more than that, but the provisions in the Bill will deliver that.

Before turning to the specific points raised, I will make one general point. I was very keen to stress in my introduction that the Bill is a range of very specific measures in relation to right to buy, domestic abuse, and removing some of the bureaucracy around social housing. It does not cover all of the Government’s programme on social housing, because much of that programme does not need a legislative framework. In fact, we have already started to deliver much of it with a £39 billion investment. The social and affordable housing programme is already under way and will be delivering very soon. Many of the quality issues that were raised in the debate are also already being dealt with; there are extensive programmes to deliver them, and that reform is on its way already.

The Bill attempts to start easing some of the pressure on social housing, which is being caused by the specific issues contained within the Bill. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will sympathise when I say that if you bring an enormous Bill before this House—we went through the process of the levelling-up Bill together—you get criticised for doing a Christmas tree Bill. However, if you bring a narrow, tightly focused Bill like this one, you are criticised because you have not put everything in it. So as a Minister you are never going to win—but this is the right step to take at this point in time.

A considerable number of noble Lords—the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pinnock, Lady Shah, Lady Murphy, Lady Jones, Lady Neate, Lady Gill, Lady Young and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Lansley, Lord Babudu, Lord Sikka, Lord Bailey and Lord Bird, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—talked about housing supply and the ability to deliver increased social housing supply. The fact that so many noble Lords mentioned this highlights the great importance of that issue. The Bill strengthens our commitment to building more social rented homes and to delivering what we all want: the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke about the Conservative legacy, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just repeated that theme. We would not be where we are now if we had not had 14 years when this problem was pushed under the carpet. In the time that the Labour Government have been in power, we have delivered the Renters’ Rights Act, tackling the problems that private rented sector tenants have in their tenancies. We have passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which has swept away some of the planning bureaucracies preventing housing being built. We are now approaching this Social Housing Bill, as well as empowering local councils and strategic authorities to deliver the infrastructure and the homes we need to grow our country. So I will not be taking any lectures from the other side of the House about their legacy, which has caused the housing crisis we are now trying to fix.

Our reforms to right to buy, notably the 35-year exemption for new-build social homes, will directly support our ambition by ensuring that councils have the confidence to deliver. The Bill’s changes will stop homes being sold before councils have recovered the costs of building them. Anyone who has been a council leader will know the pain of building homes and having them sold for less than they cost to build. Crucially, the Bill builds on the funding and regulatory certainty we have already given the sector to boost supply, including the £39 billion of investment—the biggest long-term investment in recent memory. The programme aims to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes, including at least 180,000 for social rent.

As other noble Lords have said, I have been somewhat disturbed by some of the comments about allocations to non-UK nationals. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person’s visa status means they cannot access state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for an allocation of social housing. For all social housing, the overwhelming majority—88% of social housing lead tenants—are UK nationals, according to the 2024-25 English Housing Survey. It is not at all helpful to use some of the derogatory and mischaracterising tropes that often accompany discussions around social housing. That is just not helpful, and I hope we can avoid that in future discussions. Fraudulent tenancies are sometimes obtained, and where they are councils have very strong powers to deal with them. I hope that anyone listening to or watching this debate—including anyone in this Chamber—who is concerned about a fraudulent tenancy will do what they need to do: report it to the local authority concerned. I hope we can avoid comments like that during the rest of the discussions on the Bill.

Of course we have to support councils to build more homes. My noble friends Lady Shah, Lord Whitty and Lord Sahota, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, Lady Neate, Lady Young and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Fuller, all spoke about that. In 2024-25, councils completed 10,480 homes, the highest number achieved in over 30 years. The Government are committed to reinvigorating council housebuilding, and councils are central to our efforts to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding. We have already taken decisive action to maximise councils’ engagement with our new social and affordable homes programme. Since April, for the first time, councils can mix right-to-buy receipts with grant funding, helping to improve the financial viability of their bids.

We have also allocated almost £9 million to 44 councils to support bid development through the council housebuilding support fund. This funding forms part of a £63 million four-year programme to support councils to improve their skills and capacity to build housing themselves. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I note that a great deal of work is going on with skills and capacity more generally in the construction sector. Finally, we are helping councils to borrow more cheaply to finance housebuilding by extending the preferential lending rate from the Public Works Loan Board for another year until March 2027.

The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, my noble friend Lord Sahota and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, clearly highlighted the need to provide support. Local authorities need to deliver programmes that are right for their areas. This is about the Government providing that support and funding and then letting local authorities implementing that in the right way for their local community.

We are all concerned about the safety and decency of social housing. There have been a number of mentions of Awaab’s law in our debate today. The noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Babudu and Lord Stoneham, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Jones, all highlighted these issues. Reforms are already under way which will deliver transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social homes. The newly updated decent homes standard will ensure that all rented homes in England are decent, safe and warm, designed with tenant safety at their core, while remaining proportionate and affordable for providers to deliver.

In addition, the Government have legislated on Awaab’s law, requiring social landlords to investigate and fix damp, mould and emergency hazards within strict timeframes. We have committed to bring forward regulations for further hazards using a test and learn approach. We will announce timings for the implementation of phase 2 in due course.

The Government have published a draft update to the national design planning practice guidance, which consolidates key existing guides and tools into one document. The updated guidance illustrates the Government’s priorities for well-designed places, helping local authorities to make planning decisions and developers and architects to submit planning applications to local planning authorities. It highlights that well-designed, liveable places should have a mix of house types and tenures to suit people of all ages and all stages of life, according to different needs, and integrated with other facilities. We are clear that this guidance should be applied across all housing sectors in this country, including social homes. A consultation seeking views on that guidance closed on 10 March, and we will publish a final version in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, referred to my spreadsheet about the quality of homes. I have just taken on this responsibility. I take it very seriously, and there is a lot of work to do.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Young, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to energy efficiency in social housing. We are committed to ensuring that every tenant has a decent, warm and comfortable home. We are implementing new minimum energy-efficiency standards in the social rented sector, requiring all social homes to meet the new energy performance metrics. They will help make energy bills cheaper for millions of social tenants, reduce fuel poverty and make homes warmer, more comfortable and less susceptible to damp and mould.

We have also published the future homes standards, which will come into force in March 2027 for non-high-risk building work. All new homes will have excellent insulation, low-carbon heating systems and, in most cases, solar panels.

To answer my noble friend Lady Young—sorry, I should not call her that now, but she still is—social landlords will be required to meet one of the new energy performance certificate metrics. We have listened to the sector’s concerns about affordability and deliverability, and we have introduced two compliance dates to address these concerns, allowing providers to balance their time and financial capacity across other housing priorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a key issue around investment in social housing and mentioned additional ways to generate capital to support investment in social housing. We are open to hearing innovative ideas that meet our core principles—delivering more homes for social rent and creating high-quality and sustainable places—so my officials are very happy to follow up with the noble Lord on specific proposals, and I hope he will be happy to discuss those with us.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, raised an issue about Clause 9. Clause 9 will not affect the increased flexibilities we introduced in July 2025. Councils will continue to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts, and those flexibilities will remain in place indefinitely. From 2026-27, councils will also, for the first time, be able to combine receipts with grant funding for affordable housing, helping to accelerate the delivery of new homes. The purpose of Clause 9 is to reduce administrative burdens for councils and central government because currently, whenever the rules on receipts change, the department must reissue retention agreements to every stockholding authority. Clause 9 will streamline this by allowing the Secretary of State to modify the requirements by determination, removing the need to reissue agreements while maintaining oversight. It is a safeguard power rather than something that takes away the important retention of receipts.

The noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Teather, Lady Watkins and Lady Thornhill, mentioned the important issue of estate regeneration. We are clear that increasing supply and improving the quality of existing homes must go hand in hand. Too many tenants are living in homes that fall short of modern expectations, and we are determined to increase the number of social and affordable homes and to drive up standards across the homes that already exist. That is why the reforms that I have already mentioned are under way—to improve the quality and safety of social housing.

We are committed to supporting estate regeneration schemes to transform neighbourhoods and deliver well-designed housing with a better quality of life for tenants. The core strategic objective of the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is to maximise supply, but it will also support regeneration schemes that provide a net increase in affordable homes.

The noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Young and Lord Truscott, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, among other Peers, all spoke on the right to buy. I want to be absolutely clear: the Government are not seeking to abolish the scheme. For many social tenants, it remains a crucial route into home ownership, opening the door to greater security and opportunity. However, as the noble Lord, Lord John, highlighted, we must also confront the reality before us. For too long, homes sold under right to buy have not been replaced at the rate needed, contributing to growing pressures on social housing supply and waiting lists across the country. That is why the Bill takes a balanced and responsible approach, retaining the opportunity for long-standing tenants to buy their homes, while protecting vital stock and ensuring councils can replace homes sold. So these are practical, necessary reforms that are designed to deliver a fairer, more sustainable scheme.

On the issues around home ownership and social mobility, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Gill, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, the right to buy provides a pathway for social housing tenants to own their home. However, as I said, too many homes sold under the scheme have not been replaced. So we are reforming this, as we set out in our manifesto, but we are not shutting the door on home ownership; that pathway will remain for tenants who have lived in and paid rent on their homes for a long time.

On the wider issue of home ownership, there is an extensive programme going on now with the sector to make the buying and selling of homes much less complicated and much easier for first-time buyers, so your Lordships will hear more about that in weeks to come.

The one-for-one replacement of homes was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Warwick, Lady Shah and Lady Neate. We are moving away from the previous one-for-one replacement target for homes because that was introduced when there was no wider expectation placed on councils to build. We know that the right to buy has acted as a strong disincentive to council housebuilding, which our reforms will unleash. We are calling on councils not just to replace homes sold but to go further and play a central role in delivering a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. That reflects our wider programme and objective. We will continue to monitor right-to-buy sales and council housing delivery to make sure that this continues to be the case.

I want to speak briefly about the rural exemption, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Excluding rural areas from the right to buy reflects the very real and unique challenges of replacing social and affordable homes in those communities. Constraints on land, planning and supply mean that once homes are lost, they are often extremely difficult to replace. For that reason, we have taken the targeted decision to exempt designated rural areas from the scheme. We are not proposing to exempt any further areas from the scheme.

I have already spoken a bit about allocations, but I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was very concerned about these issues. The allocations framework is not included in the Bill, but work is going on with the sector to discuss further issues around allocations. The allocations framework gives priority to the groups who are most in need, and local councils have the freedom to manage their own waiting lists so they can develop solutions that make best use of their social housing stock. They are required by law to give priority to certain categories of people—for example, those who are homeless, as I know the noble Baroness will be very well aware—and we committed in our National Plan to End Homelessness to work with partners to update statutory guidance on social housing allocations to make sure that the framework is working effectively, and to support vulnerable households.

I will just briefly mention the mergers of housing associations, which was a common theme that came out during the debate. Housing associations of course play a vital role in delivering good quality homes and services, and landlords sometimes conclude that the best way to do this is through a merger with another housing association. Housing associations are independent organisations that make their own commercial decisions, and we do not direct how they run their business. However, all registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of regulatory standards before and after any merger. In addition, under the transparency, influence and accountability standard set by the regulator, where a merger is being considered, tenants must be given the opportunity to influence and be involved in that process. A landlord must also be able to demonstrate to affected tenants how they have taken the outcome of the consultation into account when reaching a decision. I knew I was not going to get to all the points I wanted to make, but I will respond to noble Lords in writing on those I have missed.

Fundamentally, this Bill is key to ensuring that social housing continues to play the role it should in our society, not just for today but into the future. As I reflected at the beginning of this debate, social housing has long provided more than just a roof over people’s heads. It supports stable, connected communities, places where people can put down roots, build their lives and remain close to family and support networks. The Bill is a step towards restoring that stability—what the noble Lord, Lord Bird, called opportunity, security and comfort. Those were good words. It is protecting the homes we have, supporting the building of the homes we need and ensuring that the system works fairly for those who rely on it most. In doing so, it seeks to ensure that future generations can once again enjoy the security, opportunity and sense of belonging that I had growing up in Stevenage and that social housing has provided for so many in the past.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 12, Schedule 1, Clause 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 and 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 16 to 20, Title.

Motion agreed.

Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 and 16 March be approved.

Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024-26. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 May.

Motions agreed.

Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid on 16 March 2026. When referring to the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority hereafter, I will use the term “strategic authority” unless there is a particular reason to be specific.

This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England and the English Devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Much of the White Paper has now been delivered through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders best placed to take the decisions that benefit their communities.

The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following the expressions of interest process, in February 2025 we announced six places on the programme, including Hampshire and the Solent. This statutory instrument will establish the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In doing so, it represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best. The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils within Hampshire and the Solent on the instrument. The constituent councils are Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council and Isle of Wight Council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of this instrument, and I thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.

The instrument will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The amendments made to those provisions by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 do not apply for the purposes of this instrument due to transitional and saving provisions made in a separate instrument, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (Transitional and Saving Provisions) (England) Regulations 2026. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which this instrument is made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028 and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 on a four-year term.

The instrument makes provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint one of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with Hampshire County Council appointing a further member. The mayor will also be a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote. Before the mayor takes office, by the unanimous request of all constituent authorities, there will be specific interim governance arrangements for decisions on certain matters, as set out in the instrument. Once the mayor takes office, the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting; that majority must include the mayor or the deputy mayor acting in place of the mayor.

The instrument provides some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. On establishment, the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are reserved specifically for the mayor. That is why this instrument confers fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that it does confer, focused on local transport and economic development, are designed both to support the work of the strategic authority before all of the provisions of the Act are in force and to enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one.

MHCLG consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events, and the distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post.

Responses were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies. A summary of all the responses has been published on GOV.UK. The Government carefully considered the responses and, on 17 July 2025, confirmed to Parliament that the statutory test to establish a strategic authority had been met. Subject to the making of this instrument, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding, including for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.

This instrument represents clear progress on our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England. It will make this a reality in Hampshire and the Solent. It will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for introducing these regulations and outlining their effect. I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although that does not extend quite as far as Hampshire.

We on these Benches recognise the Government’s broader ambitions to pursue devolution and to simplify local government structures. In principle, we are in favour of real devolution in which decisions are taken closer to the communities they affect. However, devolution cannot become simply a process of restructuring for restructuring’s sake; nor can it come at the expense of democratic consent, local accountability or financial clarity.

The first concern is the apparent lack of public support for these proposals. The Government’s own consultation process showed that a clear majority of respondents did not agree that the creation of this combined authority would deliver the benefits claimed for it. During the passage of the then English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we made it clear that the Government’s approach should be informed by local public consent. This raises an important constitutional point: if the Government are creating a new strategic authority with a directly elected mayor, new spending powers and significant transport responsibilities, what justification is there for proceeding where there is such evident public scepticism? Can the Minister explain what threshold of public support the Government believe is necessary for reforms of this scale to command democratic legitimacy?

Secondly, there is the question of the mayoral elections that were postponed from the original date of May 2026 to May 2028. Can the Minister explain why the Government concluded that this postponement was necessary? What assessment was made of the impact that this decision would have on public confidence in the devolution process? The postponement of mayoral elections raises important questions regarding funding, investment and delivery. These devolution arrangements were presented to local areas on the basis that mayoral structures would help unlock funding, strategic transport investment and economic development opportunities. Can the Minister clarify, therefore, what impact the delay to the elections will have on the timing and quantum of these funding allocations and devolved investment programmes, as well as on the implementation of the Government’s wider devolution agenda in Hampshire and the Solent?

Thirdly, there are important questions around accountability and cost. Part 6 of the regulations provides that the constituent councils must ensure that the costs of the authority are met alongside expenditure incurred by the mayor in relation to their mayoral functions. At a time when councils are already under significant financial strain, local taxpayers will understandably ask what tangible benefit they are receiving in return for the creation of another governance layer. Can the Minister set out what estimate has been made of the ongoing administrative and operational costs of the authority? Do the Government expect these costs ultimately to be offset by efficiencies elsewhere in local government?

There are also wider concerns regarding the transfer of powers. These regulations confer transport-planning responsibilities and related functions on the authority, including powers relating to local transport plans and grants. Yet responsibility for day-to-day local services will remain with constituent councils, creating a risk of blurred accountability between the local council, the combined authority and the future mayor. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure clear lines of responsibility, in particular where transport policy decisions affect local service delivery and local budgets?

Finally, these regulations cannot be viewed in isolation from the Government’s wider programme of local government reorganisation. Many residents across Hampshire and the Solent will understandably feel uncertain about what these changes will mean in practice, how power will be exercised and whether local voices will genuinely be strengthened or absorbed into larger regional structures. We have seen proposals for the wholesale reorganisation of the county and district councils into five unitary councils, involving the break-up of several district councils. This is causing significant concern in the local area, particularly in what I would describe as the greater Southampton and greater Portsmouth areas but are, I believe, classified as South West Hampshire and South East Hampshire, where there has been a significant enlargement of those two cities to incorporate significant parts of their rural hinterland.

In particular, in the case of Southampton, there is a splitting up of the New Forest district council and the Test Valley district council, so there will be a double whammy in terms of reorganisation. There is particular concern around breaking up existing communities and the efficiencies of doing all those changes, as well as a concern about scale for some of the traditional county council functions, such as adult social care and children’s services, including whether splitting them into five will deliver genuine efficiencies.

Devolution succeeds when it carries public confidence and when accountability is clear. It is less convincing when structures appear to be imposed from above, with elections delayed and costs transferred on to councils that are already facing acute pressures, and where key decisions on funding are still held by Whitehall. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on these points today; I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments. I know that he has great experience of dealing with matters such as this. I will pick up each of his points in turn.

The first is the issue of restructuring for its own sake. That is just not where we are with this. We have had extensive negotiation with local government. The proposals that were put forward came to us from local government, and we are acting on those proposals. Anyone who has been involved in local government for as long as I and the noble Lord have been will know that carrying on as we were was not an option: it is not effective or efficient, and it does not deliver best for either the people we serve or the country, so we did need to change things.

The noble Lord mentioned consultation. It is an important point, and I will answer his question in two ways. First, the purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral strategic authority over the proposed geography. It was never intended to be a referendum. A range of views were provided by respondents, including evidence setting out the potential benefits as well as some concerns raised, and the Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State, but the relevant statutory tests set out in Section 46 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act were met for Hampshire and the Solent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can she clarify two points?

First, the Minister mentioned the 30-year funding. The point is that, in effect, it has been delayed for two years by a delay to the mayoral elections: obviously, that is of concern locally.

Secondly, in looking at wider devolution, there is concern around the new authorities being a lot smaller than Hampshire county council. We need confidence that they will not end up having higher costs in the provision of the two critical regulatory services of adult social care and children’s services.

Related to that, looking at South East Hampshire in particular, the Southampton-based authority, in effect, two districts are being split up and two half-districts, a full district and a unitary council, are being amalgamated. My geography may not be perfect—it may not be quite half—but this is quite a complex thing. What confidence do the Government and the Minister have that that will be done successfully, without risking any of those key services?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will take the second point first because, as I hope I conveyed in my winding speech, the proposals we have considered have all come from authorities themselves. They set out very clearly the proposals that they sent forward and, in most areas, there were a number of different proposals. Each one of those proposals had to set out clearly how public services were going to be managed, both through the transition and going forward; if they did not do so, they did not get put in front of Ministers for the decision-making process. So all the proposals that came before Ministers met those criteria. It was for the local authorities to set out how they would do that, and they have done so in the case of Hampshire and the Solent.

On the point about funding, I did say that there will be the 30-year mayoral investment fund, but, in the two years prior to the mayor being elected, the authority will receive a portion of this funding to support early delivery of the growth priorities, and it will also receive other devolved funding for things such as transport and adult skills. I hope that will enable the authority to establish itself as a strategic authority with a strong foundation, which we want, before we have the election for mayor.

Motion agreed.

Local Government Pension Fund

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what changes there will be in the new local government pension fund guidance in relation to (1) boycott or divestment activity, and (2) interaction with funds’ fiduciary duties.

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

My Lords, the Government’s position on these matters remains unchanged from the 2016 guidance, which was amended in 2017. Decisions on boycotts and divestment are matters of UK foreign policy and are for central government, not local authorities. It is not appropriate for local authorities to adopt investment policies that differ from UK government sanctions or foreign policy. Funds’ fiduciary duties are unchanged: they remain responsible for setting high-level investment strategies, the key driver of investment returns.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. In that case, will the Government consider changing the potentially contradictory wording in the draft guidance sent to Local Government Pension Scheme administering authorities for a closed consultation on taking non-financial factors into account in their responsible investment, in case it could be exploited to drive divestment? Will she meet me and other people interested in this matter?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the last point, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness’s contributions on the pensions Bill. If she came to meet me, I would treat it as a teach-in on pensions, so I have no problems with having a meeting. The Government are finalising the investment strategy statement guidance in the light of comments received on the draft circulated for comment, as she said, in December 2025. We are carefully considering all feedback received before publishing the final guidance. We absolutely do not want this to be contradictory. We want to make sure that the guidance is crystal-clear because our position remains unchanged: it is not appropriate for local authorities to adopt investment policies that go beyond, or differ from, UK government sanctions or foreign policy positions. We want to make that clear and we will endeavour to do so in the guidance.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this is about local government pension funds and we are discussing guidance; the Minister has just talked about an instruction. Does she recognise that the autonomy of local government ought to be an important principle that we all hold to and that we need to be very careful about how much we limit it? In this respect, including in foreign policy, we are limiting local government autonomy more than happens in most comparable democracies, including the United States.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Fit for the Future reforms do not seek to undermine the fiduciary duty of local pension funds in any way. The responsibility to set investment strategies—the key driver of investment returns—remains with the funds, making sure that they retain local accountability. New LGPS regulations will continue to require administering authorities to include preferences on environmental, social and governance factors in their investment strategies.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on planning to reintroduce the pension scheme for local councillors, which was abolished in 2015 by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, when he was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in the other place. Thousands of councillors lost their pensions. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that the noble Lord should apologise to all those councillors, of all political parties, for the loss of their pensions?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We took a different view from the previous policy, and I think that was the right thing to do. Many local councillors will potentially give up many hours of their working life to undertake their duties. It is absolutely right that they should be eligible for the Local Government Pension Scheme.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, made valiant attempts to provide clarity on the issue of fiduciary duty and systemic risk during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill. She was defeated by the combined opposition, for reasons I still do not understand, but the Government are now saying, I understand, that they are going to take action in the coming months or years. Will the Minister do her best to make sure that it is months rather than years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am always trying to make sure that things happen in months rather than years. It is not as easy as I might have thought it was, but we do endeavour to do that. Regulations on governance, pooling and investment will be laid at the end of this month. They are expected to enter into force at the end of June. These will be made using powers under the Pension Schemes Act 2026, which, as we all know, received Royal Assent on 29 April this year. Guidance on governance, investment strategy statements and pooling will be published in advance of the regulations entering into force.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of so-called lifestyling pension strategies, also known as target date or pathway funds, where savers are automatically moved out of growth assets and into gilts and bonds as they approach retirement, often without actively choosing to do so or fully understanding the impact of the switch?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is very important, and the new system is partly to make sure that the fiduciary duty is undertaken by scheme managers and by the democratic oversight that these schemes have. I hope that all those involved in the Local Government Pension Scheme will take that responsibility as seriously as they always have. I was on a pensions committee for many years. We always took that very seriously because the whole purpose of the scheme is to make sure that people get what they are entitled to once they retire.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that any new guidance in this context will approve the principles stated by the Law Commission in 2014 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2020? Those principles assert that local government investment decisions

“must not involve a risk of significant financial detriment to the fund”.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I cannot comment specifically on the Law Commission principles, but I will write to the noble Lord on that. However, the LGPS, as a public sector scheme, is subject to particularly high expectations on responsible investment—as the noble Lord indicated—and must maintain the highest standards in managing financial risk while retaining local control and displaying transparency in accountability and investment decisions. Therefore, I think the guardrails are in place, but I will come back to him on the specific issue of the Law Commission recommendations.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, the draft guidance includes a paragraph 5.6, which allows schemes, in effect, to accept a lower rate of return for “ESG-related goals”. Does the Minister agree with me that there is a real danger that this could be used for political purposes, as has been mentioned before, as a mechanism to boycott and divest to the detriment of pensioners, despite the Government’s best intentions in this regard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I made it very clear in my earlier Answer that the Government’s position is crystal-clear on this: that the issues around sanctions are for the UK Government to determine, and pension funds should not deviate from that. However, it is important that, outside of that, we give as wide a remit as possible to local authorities to work with their pension funds to make the decisions that are right for their local areas.

Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Provision of Information (Contractual Control) (Registered Land) Regulations 2026.

[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 9 March.

I draw the Committee’s attention to a minor typographical correction: at Regulation 4(3)(c)(i), the words “the right” should have a space between them. This was identified after the SI was laid and has been rectified through a correction slip. The correction is only typographical and has no effect on the meaning or operation of the regulations.

It has long been the case that a developer or land promoter can secure effective control over a piece of land—through an option, a conditional contract, a pre-emption right or a promotion agreement—without anyone outside the deal knowing about it. The land stays in the same name on the title register but, in practice, another party is determining its future. There is no legal obligation to disclose these arrangements and no reliable way of finding out about them.

The result is a land market that operates, in significant part, in the dark. Planning authorities draw up housing strategies without knowing who actually holds the cards on development sites. Smaller builders spend time and resources chasing land that turns out to be already committed, and local people find out about the development intentions for the land around them only when a planning application is submitted.

The Competition and Markets Authority examined these issues as part of its 2023 housebuilding market study and found that the largest firms alone hold contractual control over some 658,000 strategic plots through arrangements that are not on the public record. That is an extraordinary volume of land to be controlled without any transparency. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was passed under the previous Government, gave the Secretary of State the powers to address this, and the draft regulations before the Committee today give effect to those powers.

In essence, these regulations require anyone who holds one of the four specified types of contractual control right over registered land to notify HM Land Registry. HM Land Registry will then publish that information without charge—openly, digitally and in geospatial form—in a new database from April 2028. The regulations have been designed to support our objective of increasing transparency without introducing undue burdens on the sector.

HMLR will collect the names of the parties, the types of right, the land in question and the duration of the arrangement. Details about financial terms are not required. Conveyancers will provide this information. The information must be provided within 60 days of the right being created, assigned or varied through a regulated conveyancer, and HMLR must also be told when a right comes to an end. Conveyancers will also be expected to indicate the extent of the contractual control right to provide sufficient details to identify the land affected, to enable transparency rather than to represent definitive legal boundaries.

The regulations are focused on rights related to future development and include a proportionate set of exemptions for national security, loan security, short-term arrangements of less than 18 months and obligations under Section 106 planning agreements. They do not apply to agreements entered into before the regulations are made, unless those agreements are amended. The previous Government consulted on a five-year retrospective window, but we have decided not to pursue that, in order to minimise the administrative burden on businesses.

Where someone does not comply, HMLR may refuse to register a notice or restriction protecting that interest, and providing false or misleading information is a criminal offence under Section 225 of the 2023 Act.

I will say a word about why this measure matters beyond the legal mechanics. In the 1980s, smaller firms were responsible for a substantial share of housing delivery. That share has fallen dramatically and one reason for that, although it is not the sole cause, is the lack of transparency in the land market around them. They do not have the networks, the legal teams or the intelligence that larger operators have built up over decades.

A public database of who holds what rights and over which land changes that. It gives planning authorities the tools to more effectively understand the landscape of control over development land in their area, and to plan accordingly. Local communities will now be able both to understand who holds rights over development land nearby and to engage with them earlier in the process.

These regulations are a practical and measured step towards a land market that works more fairly. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As she will know, the origins of this policy lie with the previous Conservative Government and the work undertaken through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to improve transparency around contractual control agreements over land. We support greater transparency.

The Government argue that greater visibility of contractual control agreements may assist local authorities, communities and smaller developers in understanding how land is being assembled and brought forward for development. Although the principle is sensible, we also need to look at the practical implications of these regulations. Their success will depend ultimately on how they operate in practice and whether the Government properly monitor their wider effects on an already fragile housebuilding sector.

The context today is very different from when this policy was first developed. Developers, land promoters, conveyancers and, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises are facing increasingly difficult market conditions. Inflationary pressures remain significant, input costs remain elevated, financing conditions are tighter and the costs of construction materials, labour and fuel continue to place pressure on viability across the sector—not to mention the increasing regulatory burden. At the same time, the Government continue to set ambitious housing targets while housebuilding output remains under strain. We have also seen growing financial pressures across parts of the industry, including on major housebuilders, as we read in the weekend’s business papers.

Against that backdrop, we must be cautious. Even relatively modest additional compliance burdens can have wider consequences than Ministers may anticipate. The challenge in many parts of the country is no longer simply identifying land, particularly brownfield land, but ensuring that development remains financially viable once construction, financing and regulatory costs are taken into account.

The Government estimate that the regulations will impose a cost on business of approximately £4.2 million per annum. In isolation, Ministers may regard that as manageable, but business does not experience regulation in isolation. These costs sit alongside increasing taxation, staffing pressures, financing costs and wider regulatory obligations. Can the Minister therefore explain what assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of regulatory and economic pressures on SMEs operating within the development sector?

I will also press the Minister on the risk of unintended consequences, which several stakeholders raised during consultation. There is a legitimate concern that the regulations could alter market behaviour in ways that are not intended. These are, after all, private contractual arrangements, and we should be cautious about imposing disclosure requirements unless the benefits clearly outweigh the additional burdens and commercial sensitivities involved. For example, encouraging a shift away from flexible contractual arrangements and towards outright land acquisition in order to avoid additional reporting requirements could have the effect of tying up larger amounts of capital and potentially reducing the stock of land being actively brought forward for development.

Similarly, there is a risk that some landowners may become more reluctant to enter into option or promotion agreements if the public disclosure of those arrangements creates commercial sensitivities or local controversies at an earlier stage. Can the Minister therefore commit to conducting a regular review of the market impact of these regulations? I would be grateful if she could also clarify how the Government intend to ensure that the new dataset is genuinely usable and accessible in practice, and at what de minimis level this applies. Will it apply to all land ownership and the structures around that, or is there a size of plot or de minimis at which it does not apply?

The Government’s objective of increasing visibility within the land market is understandable. At a time when housing remains challenging and viability pressures across the sector are growing, the Government must ensure that these regulations support development rather than inadvertently discourage it. The test of this policy will not be simply whether more information is collected but whether it helps get Britain building more homes without placing further strain on a sector already facing considerable economic pressure. I hope the Minister can provide reassurances on these points and look forward to her response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his contribution to this short debate. He is quite right that this provision was brought forward in a Bill from the previous Government.

As I set out in my introductory speech, the purpose of this is to try to help support the SME sector and others, including local communities, alongside our other package of work, as we go forward to make sure that they have transparency and access to the information they need to make the business and local decisions that are so important to them. Transparency is not a substitute for other interventions to boost delivery, but it is a complementary and necessary precondition for a properly functioning and competitive land market.

The noble Lord is right that SME housebuilders have seen their market share significantly shrink since the 1980s, when SME builders delivered about 40% of the nation’s homes. A structural barrier to their return, as I am sure he will be aware, is the difficulty of identifying genuinely available sites. This new database will directly reduce that barrier for SMEs by allowing smaller developers to identify from the outset which sites are already under contractual control. More SMEs competing for genuinely available sites means more homes can be built by a more diverse market, which is central to our Government’s ambition to deliver more homes. We know that these regulations are not a silver bullet to the challenges SME builders face, but they do form part of a wider package of measures.

The noble Lord asked about exemption agreements. We have included targeted exemptions to make sure that the regulations are proportionate and require information to be provided only where it progresses the transparency aims. We have included the exemptions that I set out earlier, on national security arrangements such as loan security, non-development rights, short-term rights under 18 months and Section 106 agreements. Overage and clawback agreements are primarily financial mechanisms, which do not give a party the power to control how land is used or disposed, so a clear majority of the consultation respondents did not support their inclusion. Information about easements and restricted covenants is typically already available through the register of title.

I think the burdens and costs on the sector were the main issue that the noble Lord was raising. We have been deliberate throughout about ensuring that requirements are proportionate. The Government’s assessment is that the overall impact on business will be de minimis. No significant impact on the public sector is foreseen, and local authorities will benefit from access to the data at no cost. The information required is typically information that parties already hold. Exemptions exist for short-term and non-development rights. Our consultation, which was extensive, confirmed that the vast majority of parties already engage lawyers when drawing up these agreements. It was estimated that the process would add between 21 and 60 minutes per agreement.

As the noble Lord said, the impact on businesses is estimated at approximately £4.2 million per annum. That consists of ongoing compliance costs and one-off familiarisation costs to developers, land promoters and conveyancers. But, as always with these things, the important thing is to balance this with the improved transparency for communities and the industry to understand how land is available. Hopefully, that will off-set some of the costs because it will enable SMEs and others to access information that will tell them what land is available and save them wasting money looking at land that already has agreements over it.

In conclusion, these regulations will for the first time give government, planning authorities, small builders and local communities a clear and reliable picture of who controls development land in England and Wales. That is a straightforward but significant change and one that is long overdue. I trust the Committee welcomes the regulations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I asked a question, which I appreciate the Minister may not be able to answer, about whether there is a de minimis level in those exemptions—for half an acre, quarter of an acre or whatever. Secondly, she rightly raised the various exemptions, and I am pleased that they are there; for clarification, will they be under the judgment of the legal bodies handling the transaction or will they have to refer to somebody for those exemptions?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will respond to the noble Lord about the de minimis level in writing, if that is all right. In terms of determining what the exemptions are, the conveyancers will put this forward, so it will be up to them. As with all things in regulations, they will have to be honest in the way they approach this and exercise their professional judgment.

Motion agreed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

89G: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Prioritisation of development of brownfield land
In section 12G of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (preparation of draft spatial development strategy), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (2)(d) which prescribe the desirability of prioritising development on land that has been previously developed.””

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motions B and C.

What a privilege it is at the end of this Session of Parliament to bring back the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place. This landmark devolution Bill will deliver the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster to England’s regions and communities for a century, sparking growth across our regions. New powers for communities will give local people the power and ability to protect their treasured local assets, such as pubs, provide a stronger voice for them in their place, and give increased powers to local leaders to deliver regional growth.

For each of the issues that are before us again this evening, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place. The amendments tabled today by the Government respond to the concerns that have been raised. I again thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on these amendments. That House has endorsed the Government’s proposals, and I urge noble Lords to do the same.

I begin with the amendment concerning the ministerial powers of direction in Schedule 1 to the Bill. I remind the House that ensuring that every part of England can benefit from devolution remains a key objective of this Government. That is why, at the Bill’s introduction, the Government introduced new backstop powers for the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances to provide directly for devolution in an area where all other options have been exhausted and it has not been possible to agree a viable devolution proposal. Alongside these powers, we have sought to provide a simplified and streamlined route for creating new combined authorities, or combined county authorities, that will in turn become strategic authorities.

It remains the core objective of the Bill to put in place a quicker and less complex framework so devolution can be delivered more efficiently. For this reason, the Government cannot accept the amendments made previously by noble Lords to remove all Secretary of State-directed powers. However, we have heard the concerns from some noble Lords about the scope of the powers previously included in Schedule 1. To that end, and in the interests of not delaying progress of the Bill and of ensuring communities can benefit from the powers that I know all of us wish to see enacted at the earliest opportunity, the Government are content to remove all powers in Schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of a strategic authority, whether mayoral or non-mayoral, or to provide directly for a mayor of an existing non-mayoral authority.

In addition, I am happy to repeat the commitment given by my ministerial colleague in the other place that the Government will not seek to use remaining Secretary of State powers to direct the addition of a local government area to an existing strategic authority for a period of four years following Royal Assent. It will then remain subject to all the same safeguards that we have discussed at length, including application of the usual statutory tests and secondary legislation to effect the expansion that will be subject to the affirmative procedure, providing Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise any potential use of this power to expand an existing combined authority or combined county authority.

As I have said consistently throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government’s policy and practice are clear. We are working with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support across their areas. That collaborative approach will always be our clear preference. The concessions that the Government have made in the other place put that commitment beyond doubt.

I turn now to brownfield land. The Government fully recognise the importance of prioritising brownfield land for development. As I have previously said, national policy remains the most effective route through which planning reform should be pursued. It is the right place to set clear expectations about where development should take place. Where concerns have been expressed about the effectiveness of existing policy, it remains too early to assess the full impact of recent and proposed changes to national planning policy. The Government also consider the amendment proposed by this House to be unworkable. It would undermine effective plan-making and unduly constrain proper consideration of local circumstances. It would also create inconsistency between spatial development strategies prepared by mayors and other strategic authorities and those prepared by other authorities.

However, in recognition of the strength of feeling expressed about inappropriately located development, and to further reinforce a “brownfield first” approach, the Government have tabled their own amendment. This would set a requirement in primary legislation for the Secretary of State to use existing regulation-making power to ensure that strategic planning authorities have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on land that has previously been developed. This will put consideration of brownfield land on the same legal footing as other highly important issues in the legislation, such as promoting sustainable development and the impact on health and health inequalities. It will ensure that the prioritisation of brownfield land is front and centre when strategic planning authorities are producing a spatial development strategy and considering how to meet the growth needs of their area. The drafting of our amendment is consistent with national policy, making it clear that prioritising development on brownfield land is an overall objective and desirable. Enshrining this requirement in legislation will elevate its importance and further solidify the Government’s commitment to a “brownfield first” approach.

I turn now to the issue of local authority governance. As your Lordships will know, the Bill sets a clear default position. Councils currently operating the committee system, and which are not otherwise protected, will be required to move to the leader and cabinet model within one year of the relevant Bill provisions coming into force. This remains the Government’s firm expectation. However, we have heard concerns from some noble Lords that requiring a council to move to the leader and cabinet model within a year could potentially create challenges for some councils—for example, where an authority has submitted a proposal during the transition period for a boundary change or merger in response to the Secretary of State’s new power to invite such proposals. The government amendment agreed earlier today in the other place responds to those concerns.

The amendment allows the Secretary of State to extend the one-year transition period for non-protected councils by a further year in certain circumstances. It provides flexibility where a council is already on a clear path to dissolution so that it is not required to undertake significant governance change that may have little practical benefit. This does not change the Government’s wider policy on local authority governance reform. Instead, it provides a proportionate and pragmatic safeguard in response to the points raised over the pace of change.

In conclusion, this is now the third round of parliamentary ping-pong. I hope noble Lords will consider that the Government have recognised their concerns—we have had very good and thoughtful debates on all the topics and many others that I have spoken about tonight—and are attempting to reach a reasonable compromise. I urge noble Lords to endorse the positions of the elected House and allow this Bill to be concluded as soon as possible.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I want to thank the Minister for introducing this third round of ping-pong and for her willingness to listen to alternative points of view and effect numerous changes to the Bill. The Government have demonstrated that willingness to compromise and alter. For me, this has been an example of the House of Lords doing a very good job that it is supposed to do, and that examination of the Bill has been a success.

As the Minister knows, I have said a lot during the stages of the Bill about the governance of local authorities; indeed, we have voted several times on those issues. I have come to accept that the time has come for the primacy of the House of Commons to be acknowledged. They are the elected Chamber; they have considered the issues we raised around governance, and they have concluded they want a single system based on a cabinet model. I remain convinced that local people should have a choice of governance models and that the 38 councils currently operating a committee system should be allowed to continue to do so for as long as they wish to do that. I also think that councils operating a cabinet model that wish in the future to change to a committee system should have the right to do so, led by local people.

As the Minister has heard several times, I have been critical of the Short Title of the Bill. It is called a devolution and community empowerment Bill; it is actually a Bill about decentralisation and does not do a great deal for community empowerment. But we have what we have, and we can build on it. I said at the very start of the passage of this Bill at Second Reading that I wanted it to succeed, and I really do. England is, with 56 million people, overcentralised. It is a process, not an event, when you devolve power to others. We all have to do that, and I think we can build on it. It requires all parties to work together to give a reality to the desire for greater devolution in England. As the Minister said a moment ago, this is about sparking growth, and a test for whether this devolution is a success is whether growth is sparked.

I hope the Minister will take seriously the commitment the Government have entered into for an annual review and update as to the success of the Bill. There was also a proposal in Committee or on Report for a five-year review in some detail, and I think the Government will have to do that as well. The jury is out on whether the Government are fulfilling the objectives they set for the Bill—within the Bill itself and in the White Paper on which it was built—and they will have to do a lot of work to make sure that they are.

I am aware there has been a long debate around brownfield and I am going to give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who will talk about that in greater detail since she led on that amendment. But I hear the reasons that the Minister has given. It is clear to me that there is a will to build on brownfield first. I think we all share the ambition to deliver housing targets and to deliver the development that the country needs. There is a protection in the amendment that the Government have brought in, and I am hopeful that the compromise that has occurred will be a productive one.

In conclusion, I thank the Minister for the way in which the Bill has been managed. It has, in my view, been a model. I have appreciated that personally and I know my group have. We are in the midst now of creating a list of all the changes that have been made to the Bill. It is substantial, and that is due to the way in which the Government have entered the debate that we have had about how to improve devolution and community empowerment in England. I thank the Minister very much for that.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will start with Motion A. We have discussed brownfield prioritisation many times in this Chamber, and it is clear that we all agree that brownfield development should be prioritised. I am pleased that the Government have finally tabled an amendment to put that principle into legislation and therefore enshrine it in law. Time and again we were told that this is a policy matter and not for legislation, yet we do not take that approach when it comes to environmental obligations or other considerations. All we have pushed for is that brownfield is prioritised over these other considerations, which planners must take into account.

We appreciate that there are complexities and challenges in this and how the legislative changes relate to the NPPF. However, that does not mean that we should be complacent. Indeed, where is the Government’s enthusiasm to overcome the challenges of brownfield development, which people so clearly want to see? I hope the Government will follow words with action. The proof is in the pudding. None the less, we have come an awful long way on this. I thank the Minister for the time she has spent with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson on this issue. It has been worth it to get what we all need, which is brownfield, not greenfield, and regeneration of our towns and cities.

I will speak briefly to Motion B. We have argued in favour of local choice, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his dedication to this. It has been very good working so closely with the Liberal Democrats throughout on this Bill, for no other reason than that we want a decent Bill to go through, because we are all passionate about local government. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the issue has thrown into question the Government’s intentions behind this Bill. They say it is to empower local government, such as through letting local government choose its own governance models, but is it—as we rather think it might be—to impose the preferences of central government? It has been a valuable debate, and I hope it has perhaps made a bit of an impression on the Government as they go forward.

Moving to Motion C, I am grateful again to the Government, who have conceded to remove most of the powers of the Secretary of State in Schedule 1 to establish mayoral and non-mayoral strategic authorities or to impose a mayor without local consent. We accept the additional concession that the Secretary of State’s powers to expand the boundaries of strategic authorities will not be commenced for at least four years after Royal Assent. We understand the reasons why, and we again thank the Minister for her engagement on this matter. Our efforts will ensure that devolution is guided by local consent and that authorities are not pressured by the Secretary of State into changes they would not choose for themselves.

With that, I sincerely thank the Minister once again for her engagement throughout on the Bill and for the way it has passed through this House. I also thank all noble Lords who have debated this many times into the early hours of the morning for their passion for local government. I know the Bill is leaving in a better place than it was when we started and I wish it well.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. This Government’s objective remains clear: to ensure that every part of England can benefit from devolution. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, spoke about the level of centralisation we have had in this country. It is completely different from other parts of Europe—probably the rest of the world, come to that—and now is the time to change that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, reflected on the shared passion that we have across the Chamber. It has been obvious through the discussions on the Bill that we share our passion for local government; that theme has run all the way through debating the Bill.

Although we cannot accept amendments that would remove all the powers in Schedule 1, again, we have listened carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords. We are content to remove the powers in Schedule 1 that would allow the Secretary of State to direct the establishment of mayoral or non-mayoral strategic authorities, or to direct there to be a mayor of an existing non-mayoral strategic authority. We have also committed not to commence the remaining power to direct the addition of a local government area to a strategic authority for a period of four years following Royal Assent. Our Government’s preference has always been and, as I said before, will always remain to work collaboratively with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that meet local needs. We will continue to strive to do that and I hope the concessions we have set out today put that beyond doubt.

We acknowledge the strength of feeling among noble Lords on the importance of prioritising the use of brownfield land for development. As I have said before, we all share this priority. In recognition of the strength of feeling in this House and to further reinforce that, the Government have brought forward our own amendment on this, which will require the Secretary of State to make regulations that prescribe strategic planning authorities to have regard to the desirability of prioritising development on previously developed land.

As I said, our Government’s position on local authority governance remains that the executive models, particularly the leader and cabinet model, provide a more effective framework for local decision-making. I hope that the amendment we have proposed today partially meets the needs that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has described many times during our debates. Respectfully, I hope that, having withdrawn his amendments, the noble Lord will recognise that. What we have put in now on this subject is a practical safeguard, not a change in the wider policy on governance arrangements, but I hope that it meets some of the needs that have come forward during our discussions.

I am grateful for the many contributions to this Bill and especially to the opposition spokespeople, both in your Lordships’ House and at the other end of the building, for working with us and for their time and commitment, especially today, in getting outstanding matters on the Bill resolved. I had the opportunity to thank the Bill team and my private office at Third Reading, but I reiterate those thanks now to them and to the House staff, who have supported us on some late nights on the Bill. I thank my honourable friends the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities for supporting me all through the Bill, as we went through its passage in your Lordships’ House.

Perhaps I am a bit biased, after 30 years in local government, but I genuinely believe that most decisions are better taken at local level by those who know best the places, people and communities that they serve. This Bill will now give local leaders the powers, funding and support they need to power up every part of our country.

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 155A to 155F, 155H and 155K to the words restored to the Bill by that non-insistence on Amendment 155.

155K: Schedule 27, page 281, line 12, after “day” insert “(the “standard period”) or that period as extended by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsections (2A) and (2B). (2A) The Secretary of State may extend that period if the Secretary of State considers that it is likely that a dissolution order will be made in relation to the local authority during the period of one year after the end of the standard period.(2B) Any extension of that period—(a) must be granted, and notified to the local authority in writing, before the end of the standard period;(b) must end no later than one year after the end of the standard period.”

Motion C

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 123C to 123H, 123J, 123K, 123M, 123N and 123P to 123R in lieu.

123M: Clause 92, page 86, line 24, leave out from “paragraphs” to “of Schedule 1” in line 25 and insert “19 and 41”