Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

Lord Best Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I note the criticisms of the new development corporation for Cambridgeshire, as spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, from his expert local knowledge, but my comments are from the broader policy perspective. The use of the development corporation model represents a huge opportunity up and down the country to reorder the development of new homes and infrastructure and the regeneration of existing neighbourhoods. Criticisms have abounded of the major housebuilders and developers failing to deliver the quantity or quality of new homes, facilities and infrastructure that they have promised.

Development corporations can do so much better. By capturing the land value, now without the necessity of incorporating hope value, with the possibility of using compulsory purchase powers as a last resort, a development corporation can deliver a high-quality master plan to include much-needed affordable homes and social and community benefits. Delivering new and regeneration schemes is a long-term proposition, during which there may well be changes of political control within local government for the area. The value of the development corporation is not only its public accountability but its longevity, irrespective of the local uncertainties our democracy creates.

Of course, planning decisions that are bound to cause local upset but which are in the national or regional interest—and we need to build 1.5 million new homes—are hard to take at the local authority level. We know from the success of the development corporations already up and running that this model can be a game-changer. Greater Cambridge would be well-served by having its own.

I support this order, and I greatly welcome in principle the establishment of the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, with or without the modifications recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Best Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the advice of the Local Councils Network on a number of amendments that I have tabled in this group, and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and, on one amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Best. The Bill’s objective is to provide more social housing and protect our existing stock from ongoing dilution. The previous Government built roughly 130,000 new affordable homes in their five-year period. However, during that period, 28,000 social houses were disposed of. In the first year of this Government, 28,000 affordable homes are being built, but 5,806 have been lost from the social housing stock through disposal.

The first group that we looked at this afternoon dealt with the right to buy. These amendments concentrate on three things. First, they address other leaks in the bucket where social rent homes are being disposed of through sale. The exact figures are not known, but we estimate that there are 5,000 a year. Secondly, they would strengthen the provision where social houses are disposed of, so that proceeds are used to provide replacement social rent housing. Thirdly, they try to improve information on what exactly is going on here by requiring the collection of relevant data so that affordable housing is distinguished from social rent housing—we do not do that currently.

In Committee, the Minister was concerned about my amendment compromising the categorisation of private registered housing providers with government debt. Therefore, on Report, I have abandoned giving local authorities the right of first refusal at existing use value when social rent housing is being disposed of. However, in Amendment 15, we have maintained the right of private registered providers to be informed of disposals, as well as local authority housing, which is already provided in the Bill.

I am worried about overregulation and bureaucracy—I suspect that the Minister might be as well—and the feasibility of how every housing provider can be informed in a local situation. That is why my Amendment 21 proposes that a national disposal register, with access to local authorities and housing associations, should be provided. It should not be difficult to do this, and it needs to be done anyway for local authorities. It can then be accessible to housing association private registered providers.

We are supportive of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I hope very much that the Government will respond positively to the concept that the time for notification should be increased from four to eight weeks when a housing sale is being contemplated. The local authority could then have a proper period to consider whether it could intervene to purchase the housing. I hope very much that the Government will accept that amendment.

My Amendment 17 would provide for notification content to assist decision-making, so that people can make decisions in a fairly limited period—even eight weeks is fairly limited. Therefore, it would require that tenure, EPC ratings, housing compliance, stock condition survey findings, accessibility adaptations, general funding data and compliance certifications should be included in every sale notice. Following discussions with the National Housing Federation, this amendment has been designed to remove anything that the providers do not already hold. They would therefore not need to commission anything specifically. It is not designed to create an additional burden; it would just ease the process of information so that decisions can be appropriately made about whether a local authority or registered provider could get involved in purchasing the property.

Since Committee, I have tabled two new amendments dealing with the Homes England funding framework. Currently, Homes England will be asked to develop a code of responsible development disposal practice to protect social housing, in consultation with the regulator and the sector. Compliance with it will be a condition of accessing funding. The code would recognise that not all disposals are irresponsible, and we do not want to deter appropriate regeneration.

Amendment 27 addresses a significant gap in the current framework. When a provider sells a grant-funded social home on the open market, it can comply by choosing to repay any grant to Homes England and then walk away with no obligation to provide any replacement house anywhere. The amendment would require that where a social rent home disposal involves public money, it should be invested in a replacement home in the same local authority area, with a slightly more flexible requirement for affordable rent disposals. The provider would still be allowed complete commercial freedom on the disposal itself.

Finally, Amendment 21 and a similar amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, Amendment 22, concern registered providers. At the moment, they already notify the regulator following the completion of the disposal, but the tenure is not currently included in that return, and the regulator has never published the resulting data that would tell us whether it is affordable or social and where the local authority is losing social housing. We simply do not know how many social rent homes are lost through disposal and where.

These amendments attempt to underline the fact that there is a huge disparity between social and affordable rents, and therefore we must do all we can to prevent any reduction in the stock of social rented housing. The amendments seek to protect against inappropriate disposals without reinvestment and to improve information so that we can determine what exactly is happening.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, and shall speak to my own Amendments 14 and 16 in this group. I declare my housing interests as on the register, not least as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, to which I am grateful for its help with this amendment.

The sale of social housing properties that have become expensive to repair and maintain, or are simply situated in an inconvenient location, has become a contentious issue for the housing association sector. The LGA has calculated that in 2024-25 alone, 5,250 social housing homes were sold to private buyers, often at auction and no doubt often to private landlords who will be less scrupulous about letting them in poor condition. These homes are lost to the social housing stock even where the properties may be among the only remaining social rented accommodation for less affluent people in the area. The financial case for these disposals may be clear, but disposals of hard-to-replace social housing are seldom in the public interest.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, noted, the Government recognise this issue, to the extent that the Bill introduces a requirement for a social landlord to notify the relevant council of their intentions to sell four weeks in advance. This provides at least a fleeting opportunity for intervention that could save the property from leaving the social housing sector. A local authority keen to preserve the accommodation as social housing could try to negotiate its retention, perhaps by making a grant towards its repairs, or even by the council making a bid for the property. However, this represents a somewhat lightweight response to what is becoming a major drain on much-needed stock: 28,585 homes have been sold out of the social housing sector in the last eight years. The response of a four-week window when councils will be notified is surely inadequate; this is too short a time for sensible decision-making, so my Amendment 14 seeks to improve this notification requirement by extending the timescale from four weeks in advance of a disposal, as the Bill specifies, to eight weeks generally, and to 12 weeks in designated rural areas, where there are special difficulties, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron will explain. These changes would provide a wider window of opportunity for action to preserve the social housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, it a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who made such comprehensive cases for Amendments 23 and 25. I have added my name to Amendment 25.

I declare my interests as a former non-executive on both Southern and Aster housing association boards and as the current chair of Look Ahead, which does not own any shared ownership homes but, I am pleased to tell your Lordships, works with rough sleepers—so I welcome the new Prime Minister’s remarks today.

Shared Ownership Resources is a charity that has sent information to me and other noble Lords regarding the urgent need to undertake a programme of improvements, exit mechanisms and buyback options to improve the situation of some shared owners, who appear to be trapped with spiralling service charges and the need for essential maintenance and upgrades to the buildings in which they live. These problems are in part a result of recommendations for fire cladding standards associated with the Grenfell fire.

I acknowledge that the Government have gone a long way in trying to improve the lot of shared owners, which will make the situation much better for many in the future. Problems, however, are of long standing, particularly for shared owners of flats in modern blocks who purchased prior to the Grenfell tragedy. I stand here as the mother of a teacher who was in a shared ownership property in Brixon—a converted Victorian flat—that was highly successful for her. She managed to sell it and now lives in a home in Bristol, so I am not anti-shared ownership.

There is clearly a need to review the situation for those who purchased a share in a property, one of these modern flats, early in the scheme. Some owners are trapped in circumstances that arise from the inherent characteristics of model shared ownership leases and other aspects of the scheme from the early 2000s. Many would like a system of buyback to be funded through a government grant mechanism; such homes would then become social rented units, reducing temporary housing options for many currently in bed and breakfast.

The problems have been described by many shared owners, who have written to me and other noble Lords. Aleksandra, who lives in a Peabody home in Croydon, says, “I have no control over my life anymore, trying to survive the ever-increasing costs of the scheme. I am unable to sell due to the building safety crisis and my housing association does not offer a buyback option”. Secondly, Quay, who lives in an L&Q unit in Tower Hamlets, has been granted permission to sublet but is unable to sell and is making a loss through subletting. However, he has been able to move.

The problems are not just London based. Eddie is in Southend-on-Sea and he says that, because of building safety issues, his home is, in effect, impossible to sell. There is no confirmed timetable for the remedial work necessary. He states that Moat housing association could convert properties into much-needed socially rented homes, but there is no realistic buyback option.

Rebecca bought her property in 2005 and has asked Hyde housing association if it will take back the 35% of the property that she owns. She reports that she would hand it over at no cost, as she has since met a partner and does not need the flat any more. She is currently subletting with the housing association’s agreement but is making a significant loss on rental income due to what she describes as “extortionate” service charges.

The final example is from the north of England. Holly purchased a shared ownership flat in Leeds in 2007. It was advertised as an affordable option for people on lower incomes. Nineteen years later, her home is, in effect, unsellable due to unresolved cladding and building issues. She has asked Together Housing to buy back her share, but it has refused because it has no funding available to do so. However, she reports that the association has acknowledged that the service charges have become unaffordable. She considers herself trapped with no viable exit route.

All these correspondents report the negative effects that such housing problems are putting on their health and well-being. As a mental health nurse, I firmly believe that to be true. For these residents and others in similar situations, these amendments are necessary so that the problems can be properly assessed and potential solutions identified in this Parliament. Other solutions may be identified, but central funding for buyback options should be seriously considered, particularly as such an approach would increase the number of social housing homes for rent. I hope that the Minister is in a position to report that the Government will accept at least one of these amendments, so that historical government-backed schemes can be reconsidered in the light of the powerful information provided by the charities and individuals that have outlined their issues to many in this House.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 25 in this group of amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Thornhill. This amendment calls for a review of shared ownership. I emphasise that this proposed review should cover the special circumstances of shared ownership for older people.

Fortunately, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People, which I have the honour to chair, produced an excellent analysis of the key issues back in 2023 from our inquiry into shared ownership for an ageing population. A large section of our ageing population cannot afford to downsize to more manageable, accessible homes but will never be eligible for social housing. This squeezed middle can benefit in later life from the opportunity to move from family-sized accommodation to somewhere more compact, starting a chain of sales that help young and old alike. Savings accrue to the NHS and social care, alongside the direct benefits to the older person, but it has been a struggle to find a form of shared ownership that can be provided on an affordable basis for the less affluent home owner. The right shared ownership model could achieve this.

Homes England has devised its own older people’s shared ownership model—OPSO. The trouble is that this product currently involves an anomalous form of grant aid, which needs fixing. The OPSO grant means that, if potential occupiers can afford a 75% share, they will not be charged any rent on the 25% that remains in the ownership of the provider. This is very helpful, but the OPSO terms then stipulate that, if the shared owner can afford only 70% or less, they must pay full rent on the remaining 30% or corresponding share of the going rent. Someone who can afford only a 50% share must pay 50% rent; the combination of a 50% rent plus a significant service charge could be just too expensive for owners of middle-value homes.

Amendment 25, in its call for a review of shared ownership, needs to include the specific circumstances of older people and sort out the rather weird offering currently available from Homes England. The amendment could trigger a review that leads not just to an improvement in the amount of shared ownership housing for older people but that also means more sensible terms for the product itself—an excellent opportunity for a reset of a tenure that has much unrealised potential for young and old alike.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Best]

28: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safetyAfter section 86 of the Housing Act 1985 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term), insert—“86ZA Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety(1) This section applies where—(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure and assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.(2) When subsection (1) applies, the registered provider must grant the tenant a new secure tenancy which is—(a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy, and(b) in a dwelling where the threat to the tenant’s personal safety does not apply.(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—(a) the registered provider,(b) the tenant, or(c) any member of the tenant’s household.(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the registered provider concerned must co-operate with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.””Member's explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure social housing providers offer a return to a secure tenancy to a tenant forced out of their social housing by threats of violence, in accordance with police advice.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, this group of amendments begins with Amendment 28, in my name, and covers a range of different but vital issues. The concluding Amendment 76 in the group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, addresses the treatment of abuse victims who get into debt while living in temporary accommodation and lose their entitlement to a secure home. As I am sure the noble Baroness will explain, that is a vital amendment. I greatly welcome the wider definition of domestic abuse announced by the Minister in her letter to Peers of 14 July and encapsulated in the 46 government amendments in this group.

Amendment 28 picks up on a separate but related issue. It would ensure that social housing providers offered a new secure tenancy to a tenant who had been forced out of their social housing by threats of targeted youth or gang violence following police advice. This change was first proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. A constituent of hers, as instructed by the police, left her social rent home but thereby lost access to secure accommodation and was trapped in miserable temporary accommodation, with no right of return. She was penalised because one of her children had been threatened with serious violence by gang members, not because she or any member of her family had done anything wrong. Frighteningly, these cases of gang violence are not rare in some of our inner-city areas. The family of Helen Hayes’s constituent subsequently suffered the tragic death of a teenage son in a separate gang-related incident. The threats to life can be very real.

Amendment 28 would ensure that, in future cases, the fleeing household would not lose the right to return to a secure tenancy where the move was on the basis of police advice. I understand that the Government will be strengthening guidance to social landlords. What is needed is a firm obligation on the housing association to restore the household security of tenure in a decent property after a temporary emergency move.

Amendment 29 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I thank the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation, the National Federation of ALMOs and the LGA for their work on this issue. Amendment 29 seeks to end the current legal anomaly whereby, on the one hand, social landlords are required to make checks of tenants’ homes for safety reasons while, on the other hand, the tenant may deny access. A recent court judgment has ruled that social landlords do not have a right of access in these cases. The social landlord can be penalised for failing to carry out safety checks, can be accused of regulatory failure and can face criminal prosecution, but they cannot fulfil the requirements on them because the tenant is denying access and the courts will not support the social landlord taking action to enter the premises.

Quite properly, the Government have been bringing pressure to bear on social landlords to improve their management and maintenance services, including by carrying out more safety checks and works. There is the annual servicing of gas boilers, periodic safety checks and fire safety checks, including smoke and carbon monoxide alarm checks. However, the social landlord may make comprehensive and repeated attempts to secure entry to carry out these statutory checks but is still denied access. The tenant may have mental health difficulties, they may be hoarders or they may simply lead a chaotic lifestyle that makes appointments hard to keep, but taking the tenant to court as a last resort has revealed an ambiguity in the law, with a judgment last October that courts cannot grant access unless Parliament has clearly conferred such a power.

There is an urgent need to sort out the legal position. I know that MHCLG has been in helpful negotiations with all the representative bodies to bring together statutory guidance that would ensure good practice by social landlords and avoid accusations of trampling on tenants’ human rights. However, the blockage encountered in the courts suggests that social landlords need more than this important guidance. It seems that new legal powers are required.

I know the Minister has been pursuing this matter within MHCLG and with the other relevant government departments to resolve this legal dilemma. I was grateful to the Minister, as on so many occasions, for her willingness to meet and discuss the issue and for her subsequent letter in which she recognises the strength of the case and says: “I agree that the ability of landlords to access homes for essential safety checks is an important issue that we must take seriously. The early evidence suggests that there is an issue for government to resolve, and I am sympathetic to your amendment”.

Without a solution, the housing associations, councils and ALMOs are left in an impossible position. As always, the hard work behind the scenes by the Minister is much appreciated, and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29, and I am delighted to see that it is grouped with the Government’s amendments extending protections for victims of domestic abuse, which I certainly support.

I was grateful for the Minister’s constructive response to this amendment in Committee, especially her recognition that the matter needs further consideration and her commitment to convene interested stakeholders to explore a way forward. I know that representative bodies from across the social housing sector have been working with officials on the best way to solve the issue of access to residents’ homes to carry out essential inspection repairs and safety works. In Committee, the Minister raised important concerns about tenants’ rights and the potential impact on their sense of security in their own home, and I agree that that is extremely important in safeguarding a tenant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. However, the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Best, seeks to ask simply: are existing routes for access clear, consistent and fast enough when tenants and residents do not engage and clear safety risks are posed? I am convinced that the answer to this is no.

We know that housing associations and councils increasingly report difficulties in gaining access to residents’ homes to carry out statutory safety inspections. Recent HQN research found that 60% of surveyed social landlords had growing or considerable concerns about access issues. The primary concern here must be the safety of residents and social housing staff. If gas safety checks or emergency repairs cannot be conducted, issues can be left unidentified or unresolved that pose significant and imminent danger not just to the resident in that property but to people in neighbouring homes as well.

Legal action is typically taken as a last resort after steps to engage directly with residents have proven unsuccessful, but even this has become more challenging. Housing associations have observed a shift in decisions from judges over the last 12 months, with judges seemingly less willing to approve requests for injunctions, particularly for matters other than gas safety. As I mentioned in Committee, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Best, has just mentioned it too, a court judgment from October 2025 demonstrated that Parliament’s intention on forced entry is currently unclear.

Alongside the obvious risk to safety, there is the financial cost of inaction. In a 2026 White Paper, the Association of Safety and Compliance Professionals estimated that repeated access attempts cost the social housing sector more than £175 million annually in direct operational terms, with the figure rising to between £200 million and £245 million with legal escalation included. I urge that this money could be better directed towards work that will improve the conditions of residents’ homes or to building much-needed new social housing.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s approach so far. Whether through this amendment or another mechanism to clarify the process for securing access, I know that both she and social housing bodies want to work in partnership to develop a workable system with tenant safety at its heart.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, for highlighting this important issue, and I hope she accepts our commitment to tackle it. In the meantime, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Best, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, it was a good debate, with approval from all sides for all the amendments in the group. It was good to hear the details of the 46 government amendments that will widen the definition of domestic abuse. Once again, it has been invaluable to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Teather, and to understand the Government’s sincere efforts to remedy the inherent injustices in the current arrangements for domestic abuse survivors through enhanced guidance. I thank the Minister for her very full and helpful response and for her firm commitment to take further action if guidance proves insufficient to protect victims of domestic abuse.

On dangers from crimes of violence where the police have strongly advised a move, it is important to note the Minister’s commitment to strengthening the guidance to social landlords, now in preparation. This will, I hope, make a significant difference.

When it comes to the no-access problem, we must await further action by government on the need for a change in the law for a statutory right of access, but I am greatly heartened by the willingness of the Minister to find a lasting solution. With these comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, for once I rise to oppose—at least in part—an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham: Amendment 77. I want to defend the concept of providing secure social housing tenancies for life. The review proposed in Amendment 77 envisages five-yearly reviews of whether a tenancy should continue, with the possibility of a consequent requirement for a tenant to move elsewhere if their circumstances have changed sufficiently. This would engender a constant state of uncertainty and insecurity for every social housing tenant.

Apart from the administrative overload, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, has drawn attention, I suggest there are some powerful reasons why denying social housing tenants a secure lifetime tenancy is likely to have undesirable consequences. First, the section of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that has not been introduced to date, and which the Bill intends to repeal, would have required social housing tenants to pay a higher rent if their income improves. In theory, this would pressurise tenants to move on into the private rented sector or, less probably, to buy their own home elsewhere. I maintain that no regime should penalise tenants in social housing who improve their position in life by working hard and earning more. They should not be expected to pay for their success by facing higher rents. A system of rising rents for rising incomes brings disincentives to work longer hours, or even to work at all.

Secondly, if a tenant leaves subsidised housing because their improved financial position has meant a penalty in their rent, what happens if they have a reversal of their fortunes? The PRS property to which they have moved will no longer be affordable on their now reduced income, but it would be virtually impossible for them to regain a social home lost in this way.

Thirdly, if tenants are pressurised to move out of social housing and into private renting when their personal circumstances improve, they are likely to encounter the problem that their income will drop on retirement. A market rent that was affordable when they were working can swiftly become unaffordable when they are retired. The taxpayer will then get lumbered with a further increase in the housing benefit bill.

Fourthly, keeping households on an estate of social rented housing, despite their circumstances improving, has social and community advantages. A mixed-income estate that includes some tenants on rather higher incomes means successful neighbours providing role models for other families, often demonstrating community leadership for resident-led activity.

Fifthly, if tenants are encouraged or compelled to move out when they do well, those who remain could be stigmatised as losers and failures. This stigma can seriously affect children’s life chances, as American research into concentrated poverty has revealed.

Finally, there is the argument that tenants should be compelled to move on if they no longer need the space they are occupying—for example, if they have a spare bedroom. For this, the bedroom tax presents a case study. This reduction in housing benefit was intended to incentivise underoccupying tenants to move out but, in reality, very few of those facing the bedroom tax proved willing or able to move. Rather, the withdrawal of benefit from those with a spare room has served only to reduce the incomes of those affected. It has seldom been possible for the downsizing tenant to find a suitable home elsewhere. They have simply been made poorer through losing some of the housing benefit that previously covered their rent.

Instead, carrots rather than sticks have been shown to work in persuading older tenants to downsize into later living homes, such as a cluster of smart new apartments that replaced redundant garages on a council estate. Rather than pressurising elderly tenants to downsize, the incentive of a more suitable home—nearby accommodation that is more accessible and manageable —produces better results for everyone.

For all these reasons, I caution against a review that considers alternatives to secure-for-life social housing tenancies. These alternatives are likely to diminish the quality of life for tenants, especially measures that pressurise tenants unwillingly into an enforced move. Like most of us who are home owners, tenants in social housing thrive on the knowledge that they are secure in their own homes for as long as they choose.

On Amendment 78, I do not support the unhelpful provision in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to terminate fixed-term secure tenancies, which has never been implemented. This Bill is right to repeal that measure and preserve long-term security of tenure for social housing renters.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Home Ownership: First-time Buyers

Lord Best Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am always happy to look at any innovative ideas, wherever they occur. If there are those in Europe, I am happy to have a further look at them. We are making sure that we work harder on land availability through our partners in this programme. Some young people are currently paying far more in rent than they would have to pay if they had a mortgage. So making sure that finance is accessible and that properties are accessible is very important to getting this moving.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that a rather surprising and paradoxical way of helping first-time buyers is through making it easier to build for last-time buyers: those who want to downsize or right-size? Then you get two for one: you are helping the elder person but also providing, through the chain of lettings and purchases that follow, something for first-time buyers as well.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Best Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Best]

61: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safetyAfter section 86 of the Housing Act 1985 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term) insert—“86ZA Duty to ensure continuity of secure tenancy in cases of threat to safety(1) This section applies where—(a) a registered provider of social housing has granted a secure and assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England to a person (whether as the sole tenant or a joint tenant), and(b) the registered provider is satisfied that there is a threat to the personal safety of that person or of a member of that person’s household which means there is a risk to their personal safety unless they move.(2) When subsection (1) applies, the regulator must ensure that the registered provider grants the tenant a new secure tenancy which is— (a) on terms at least equivalent to the existing tenancy, and(b) in a dwelling where the threat to the tenant’s personal safety does not apply.(3) In this section, a “threat to personal safety” means any threat of violence, including in circumstances of—(a) domestic abuse where the perpetrator does not live at the same address as the victim;(b) an escalating neighbour dispute;(c) a threat of targeted youth or gang violence.(4) In assessing the threat under subsection (1)(b), the registered provider must act in accordance with any relevant police advice provided to—(a) the registered provider,(b) the tenant, or(c) any member of the tenant’s household.(5) In the event that a registered provider is unable to ensure the provision of an appropriate new secure tenancy pursuant to subsection (2), the regulator must ensure that the registered provider concerned co-operates with other registered providers to ensure an appropriate new secure tenancy is provided in a timely manner.””

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, Amendments 61 and 62 are in my name. Amendment 61 would ensure that social housing providers—councils and housing associations—offer a new secure tenancy to a tenant forced out of their social housing by threats of violence, including domestic abuse and gang violence, in accordance with police advice.

The amendment has its origins in the debates on the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. It was proposed by Helen Hayes MP, supported by the National Housing Federation and Shelter. Helen Hayes’s constituent, known as Georgia, was forced out of her housing association home of nine years when her eldest son was threatened by gang members. The police told Georgia that her son’s life was at risk and that she should move immediately for his safety. If anyone thinks that the risks in such a case may be exaggerated, they should note that later the younger brother in this case was brutally murdered in a separate unrelated incident. Having moved swiftly to temporary accommodation, as advised by the police, when the moment came to return to a secure tenancy, Georgia found herself at the bottom of the housing waiting list once again, despite paying rent on both her original home and the temporary placement.

Georgia spent a year in dreadful temporary accommodation but then found she had no right of return to a secure home until the housing association finally relented. Amendment 61 seeks to rectify this deficiency in the protection afforded to social housing tenants, giving them a right of return where their move resulted from police advice. The Regulator of Social Housing would ensure that the social landlord granted the displaced tenant a secure tenancy. In the event of the registered provider being unable to do so, the regulator would have to ensure that the social landlord concerned co-operated with other social landlords to ensure an appropriate new, secure tenancy. Although an enlightened housing provider might ignore the administrative niceties and allow a return to a secure home, the amendment makes this obligatory, not a matter of discretion, for the social housing landlord. This would seem to be a matter of righting an injustice in the current system and would seem only fair.

I turn to Amendment 62, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I am grateful for the important work done on this amendment by the Chartered Institute of Housing. Amendment 62 clarifies the legal position for social landlords who need to gain access to their property to carry out safety checks and works. Social landlords must fulfil a widening range of health and statutory duties following the increased regulation of the sector over recent years. However, they are finding increased difficulty in gaining access to some tenants’ homes for checks, particularly the annual servicing of gas boilers, periodic electrical safety checks and fire safety checks, including smoke and carbon monoxide alarm checks. If these checks are not done, the occupiers and their neighbours face potential dangers and the landlords themselves can be accused of regulatory failure and may face criminal prosecution.

Amendment 62 aims to clarify the law and provide an acceptable route for forced access where, in a minority of cases, this is necessary. The aim must be to prevent cases being taken to court, as well as to be clear on what happens when this is the only option in no-access cases. In 2025, bodies representing social housing providers, led by the Chartered Institute of Housing, commissioned a consultancy, HQN, to consider these issues. The resulting report, Opening the Door, provides sound advice on good practice for gaining access to tenants’ homes by consent. However, there remains the need for landlords to go to court to obtain permission to enter a tenant’s home in persistent no-access cases.

For forced entry, the social landlord currently relies on the tenancy terms and can seek a county court access injunction. Section 12 of the Housing Act 1988 applies, along with Section 11(6) of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985. The problem is that two conflicting county court judgments have created confusion over whether landlords really can force access to a property despite the dangers of not doing so; for example, from faulty gas or electrical installations. The social landlords have no desire to start possession proceedings for eviction, which would represent a disproportionate and unhelpful way of resolving the safety issue. Tenants might be failing to give access because of mental health difficulties, including hoarding behaviours, while others might simply struggle to make appointments. These tenants need help and support, not eviction. Amendment 62 would clarify the law, providing for compulsory access after the issuing of clear notice requirements, prior reasonable engagement and strict safeguards. It is a necessary response to a growing problem. I commend the amendment and I beg to move Amendment 61.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 63 in my name. I apologise to the noble Lord: I was just coming through the doors as he rose to his feet. It took me longer to get down the stairs than I was intending. It would have been easier if I had been swimming.

Amendment 63 simply extends the statutory provision to include a wider group of potential beneficiaries. In no sense does it seek to dilute the critical importance of the primary purpose of the intention around those suffering domestic abuse, but it seeks to include other groups who would benefit and whom it seems appropriate to fit within this statutory provision, not least disabled people, those coming out of care situations and those coming out of custodial situations. It seems a logical extension of the statutory provision that does not in any sense dilute the primary purpose but is very much in the spirit, intention and purpose of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

To deliver long-term improvement, this Government have committed in A National Plan to End Homelessness to tackling out-of-area placements and driving out those unsuitable practices. This includes poor practice when it comes to safeguarding vulnerable children and adults. With this reassurance, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, this has been an incredibly rich group of amendments. I think we have all appreciated the contributions of all noble Lords on these six amendments. Perhaps I could confine my closing remarks to Amendments 61, 62 and 65, on all of which the Minister has expressed not just sympathy but a willingness to do something further.

I know that Amendment 61, on where people have to forfeit the right to a secure tenancy when they have been advised by the police to move out to temporary accommodation, has struck a nerve. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, Lady Teather and Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their support for this amendment. All of them also supported Amendment 62, where we are seeking clarification of the law on gaining access for safety checks that are for the benefit of the occupiers, but where access is being denied.

The Minister said that further consideration will be given to both these amendments. It is clear that existing provisions are not working, even if they exist. She has generously agreed not just to meet in relation to the forfeiting of rights to secure tenancies when moved on by the police, where a meeting will be held with myself and colleagues, but to convene a session, on the guidance that is evolving, with the Ministry of Justice on the opportunities to gain access where that is, at the moment, being denied. These are helpful concessions from the Minister, and I am very grateful.

This brings me to Amendment 65 and the very powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate. I think we are all deeply grateful to her for bringing her lifetime of experience and understanding of these issues to the debate. I am grateful, too, to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for supporting this amendment, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Warwick and Lady Teather. I think the Minister has agreed to take this away and, in considering the updating of guidance, which is clearly out of date on these issues, to have another go and, again, to convene a session at which further debate can take place on this crucial issue, which has been very well explored in the Committee today. It is a tribute to the Committee to have been part of this debate. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 61.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

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

Lord Best Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I too was delighted to be a member of the Industry and Regulators Committee that produced this report. I also thank the clerk and the team who looked after us. They did an absolutely brilliant job. What we discovered six months ago has been brilliantly explained by our esteemed then chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. I would just like to summarise our findings.

First, the ghastly Grenfell Tower tragedy revealed the long-overdue need for expert, decisive regulation for building safety. Secondly, the Government’s response in establishing the Building Safety Regulator had floundered and the BSR urgently needed to improve its performance. Thirdly, the Government were seized of the urgency of this situation and, not least with the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, as the new BSR chair—I am delighted to see him here—there were important signs of real progress in clearing the backlog and achieving faster and more effective regulation. I am sure we will hear more of this progress tonight.

This story is not one of a need for deregulation. No one would wish us to return to a system that allowed dangerous practices across the construction industry. Rather, it is about speedy and effective regulation. The BSR in its initial form was opaque in its requirements and irresponsibly slow in its decision-making. The new-look BSR is not about deregulation but about better regulation, as I am sure this debate will make clear.

I would like to raise the related issue of regulation of construction products, which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, has touched on. The BSR is not directly responsible for this. The task falls to the Office for Product Safety and Standards, the OPSS, located within the Department for Business and Trade, which has the duty of protecting

“people and places from product-related harm”.

Dame Judith Hackitt’s 2017 review had found the process for testing and certifying products for use in construction is

“disjointed, confusing, unhelpful, and lacks any sort of transparency”.

It is clearly impossible for the BSR to make buildings safe if the products being used are unsafe. In one of our debates on the Grenfell disaster, the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, told us how the tiles for cladding were used as the best fuel for bonfires on construction sites, with those working in construction entirely familiar with just how inflammable—and therefore dangerous—these products could be. Yet there they were on the face of the tallest buildings, which were the least likely to cope with a serious fire.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s phase 2 report, published last September, argued that there was systemic dishonesty on the part of those who made and sold the cladding panels and insulation products as used on the building. The phase 2 report suggested enhanced arrangements for regulating construction products. Samantha Dixon, the Minister for Building Safety, told our committee that the plans to establish a single construction regulator would include greater regulation of construction products. Could the Minister update us on progress in achieving a new regime for regulating construction products?

There was good news last summer in the extension of government support to cover the remediation costs of social rented homes in buildings over 11 metres. The cost is being largely covered by the original builders that are still in business and by the building safety levy. Are there now plans to go further and compensate occupiers for safety measures in buildings that are less than 11 metres high but which have life-critical safety defects, as certified by qualified fire engineers? Can we expect support for the unfortunate shared owners and leaseholders, some still facing truly ruinous bills, in these less tall but just as unsafe homes? An update from the Minister would be much appreciated.

Affordable Housing: Young People

Lord Best Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[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?

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Best Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I declare my housing interests as in the register.

I commend the Bill, which introduces a number of legislative changes to enhance the quantity and quality of desperately needed affordable and social housing. I particularly welcome its provisions for constraining the right to buy, for the repeal of the awful and never-enacted measures to enforce sales of the best social housing, for the next steps in the endless story of the Grenfell tragedy, and for greater security for domestic abuse victims. Together, this whole package of measures will make an important difference.

In Committee, I will be bringing forward some modest but important amendments on points of detail, but for this Second Reading debate perhaps I could set the Social Housing Bill in its wider context. The Government have been taking significant steps to increase the output of councils and housing associations. The social housing sector’s subsidy settlement via Homes England, at £39 billion for the next 10 years, is the best since 2010. The national housing bank looks promising, and the agreement for rents to be increased by CPI plus 1% annually for a decade should ensure ongoing management and maintenance costs are properly funded. Other government measures aim to streamline planning consents and get the reluctant housebuilders to allocate a proper proportion of their new homes for social housing. That is all good stuff which will, I hope, produce around 50,000 new affordable homes per annum, more than half at social rents.

However, it is worth remembering that total investment in the social sector is a fraction of its level in times past. The proportion of the nation’s homes represented by council and housing association accommodation has fallen from its peak of 32% to just 17% today, partly due to the more than 2 million sales under the right to buy. The Bill seeks to address this problem of running the bath with the plug out, which should encourage councils to build once again.

Nevertheless, there is one serious omission in the Government’s support for the social housing sector: there is virtually no funding or strategy for the upgrading of hopelessly outdated current housing stock. That includes the leftover 1960s and 1970s prefabricated estates and tower blocks that now need renewing or replacing; the flats over shops in half-abandoned high streets; and the unfit privately rented pre-1919 properties that are long past their sell-by dates. While the Government’s emphasis on adding 1.5 million extra homes over the life of this Parliament is to be greatly applauded—particularly with the emphasis on social housing—it is a serious hole in the Government’s strategy that existing outdated housing is largely ignored. While I welcome the special help for particularly deprived neighbourhoods in the form of the Government’s Pride in Place initiative, this new funding does not stretch to improving existing accommodation. Sadly, the current absolute priority for new building is leaving tens of thousands of tenants in the sort of conditions that led to the untimely death from cold and mould of little Awaab Ishak in Rochdale.

Investment in housing-led regeneration has its own paybacks, with beneficial side-effects that are not always so apparent from the building of new homes: the most hard-hit local economies get a boost; much-needed opportunities emerge for training and apprenticeships for the growing number of NEETs; communities can see and engage with the renewal of their local environments; health and well-being can improve for populations with the worst health records; and hope and aspiration, after years of neglect, can be restored. The Renew project, representing the social housing providers in the northern regions, shows what can be done using devolved powers and funding for pilot schemes. In Greater Manchester, mayoral development corporations—MDCs—with wide powers are busy with major regeneration projects.

In relation to private sector properties in urgent need of upgrading, Blackpool Council, for example, is putting pressure on the worst landlords and taking direct action of its own through a local housing company. Elsewhere, community-based housing organisations are acquiring and modernising the poorest-quality private rented housing. So much more could be done to improve neglected estates and neighbourhoods if regeneration were mainstreamed once again. Maybe the Government’s overdue long-term housing strategy will address this omission. Perhaps the shift in powers to the mayors and combined authorities will lead to greater priority for regeneration activity. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister when the promised national housing strategy can now be expected.

Finally, I will comment on the state of the housing association sector. Mergers and takeovers have led to fewer and much larger organisations, which has brought some downsides. This trend has obvious financial advantages—lower borrowing costs and economies of scale in procurement and employment—but it has meant that some housing associations are geographically widely dispersed and decision-making is distant from those affected. Some of the sector’s broader, housing-related, place-shaping activity—local employment schemes, partnerships with local homelessness charities, civic engagement of staff in local affairs, et cetera—has unfortunately been lost. In return for the help that the Government are now providing and the extra support from this Bill, I hope more of the housing associations will behave like the best in class and increase their sensitivity to their tenants and communities at the local level, regaining the trust and confidence that this sector needs and deserves.

Home Ownership: First-Time Buyers

Lord Best Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Social and affordable housing sit side by side. We have confirmed a new 10-year £39 billion social and affordable homes programme to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes over the programme’s lifetime. At least 60% of the homes delivered will be for social rent, with the remainder available for other tenures, including shared ownership, affordable rent and intermediate rent in London. This programme is active now. The councils and housing associations are bidding into that programme, as are other bidders, and I hope we will be able to deliver at pace very quickly.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is the longer-term effect of having fewer first-time buyers that really counts? When you retire as a tenant, you have not paid off a mortgage, you have not got a capital asset and you see your rent rising every year but your income falling. It catches up with you on retirement. In that longer-term perspective, I ask the Minister: what has happened to the Government’s long-term national housing strategy, which she promised me on 11 February would be out by 31 March? Is this on the way, and will it include a good chunk on how to bolster the number of first-time buyers, which is so important?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right to say that, where people are not able to buy their own homes, this can lead to problems later on where people on fixed incomes later in life are on rapidly increasing rent. So it is very important that we try to encourage as many young people as possible who are able to buy property to carry on doing so. On his point about the long-term housing strategy, it is on its way. We said we would publish in the spring, and spring is not quite over yet. I hope we will be able to deliver it very soon.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Best]

307: After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause—
“Chief Planner After section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (local planning authorities), insert—“1A Local planning authorities and strategic authorities: Chief Planner(1) Each local planning authority and each strategic authority, as defined in section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (strategic authorities), must appoint an officer, to be known as Chief Planner, for the purposes of their functions in relation to planning and spatial development.(2) Two or more authorities may, if they consider that the same person can efficiently discharge for both or all of the authorities the functions of Chief Planner, concur in the same appointment of a person as Chief Planner for both or all of these authorities.(3) An authority may not appoint a person as Chief Planner unless satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications and experience for the role.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require authorities with planning and spatial development functions to appoint a Chief Planner to lead this professional work.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak for one minute on Amendment 307. It is in my name but has been championed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for months, and he is very sorry not to be here tonight. It is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It would require local authorities and strategic authorities to have a named, qualified, responsible chief planner, shared with another authority if so desired. After the underresourcing of local authority planning for 20 years or more, leading to delay and frustration all round, this amendment would raise the status and profile of planning within local government. It would identify the responsible officer in each authority, which would speed up decision-making and enhance accountability.

The amendment comes with the endorsement of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Better Planning Coalition, which represents the 40 key planning-related organisations across the country. It would give the Government the perfect opportunity to help restore the position of planning to front and centre within local government, while increasing the respect of council members and the confidence of developers and providers. I see no reason why the Government are not enthusiastically positive about the amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Best Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 310 under the welcome leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I declare an interest as a retired participant in a mixed family farming business in Somerset.

In Committee I spoke at length on the very real need for some form of rural-proofing or rural duty, preferably even a rural commissioner, where a strategic or combined authority had any rural communities within its boundaries. I will not repeat what I said then or speak at such length, noble Lords will be glad to hear, but things are very different in rural England compared with urban England. The needs are different and the solutions to those needs are different. Without some form of rural thinking at the seat of power, rural communities will inevitably lose out if they are poor and need special attention or, at the other end of the scale, if they are enterprising and need help to fulfil their potential.

Rural communities have lost out for decades from not having any clout, rural-proofing or consideration at the various seats of power. We touched on these issues in Committee; some have been raised already in this debate. First, houses are more expensive and wages are lower. In many rural communities there are no houses to rent or buy unless you are very rich. It is a serious rural problem.

Secondly, on transport, how do you get your children to the doctor, to local football training or to the local HE college without an extra car in your family? The answer is that you cannot. Local political administrative thinking needs to take this into account.

Thirdly, on energy, most rural houses have poor insulation and very rarely is mains gas available, so you have to have more costly forms of heating—oil, electricity or bottled gas. The Government have recognised this in recent days, and we are very grateful for that.

Fourthly—this is the most convincing one—there is higher council tax. Central government support for rural local authorities, despite delivery of services being more expensive in rural areas—is 40% less per head compared with the towns, which is why rural council tax is on average 20% higher per head than in urban areas and is about to get worse. This is caused by the fact that there has never been a proper rural voice in central government, which supports the point we are making.

These are some of the shortcomings that rural dwellers have to suffer, but there are also missed opportunities. For instance, in delivering training for entrepreneurs, how do you reach out to the various different businesses that exist many miles distant from each other? How do you set about pumping new life into the various market towns in your area? It is amazing what can be done in this respect by, for example, finding a business theme that can inspire visitors and customers. For instance, there are food festivals at Padstow, which is near me in Cornwall, and at Bridport in Dorset; there are culture festivals, such as those at Hay-on-Wye, Broad Chalke or Cheltenham; or those on art, as at St Ives, again in Cornwall. But there could be garden attractions, nature tours, beer festivals or a major town attraction to attract footfall in its various forms.

I remember visiting, a few years ago now, a small town in central France that had a massive sports centre with a swimming pool, ice rink, gymnasium and climbing walls—note the plural. As a result, every day the town and shops were humming with families who had come from far and wide. The possibilities are endless, but you need a rural focus to help kick-start them and provide some pump-priming funding. In essence, this issue has at its heart both deprivation and need, as well as opportunity and possibilities. It should not be ignored.

Finally, I remind noble Lords that the Bill is called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. What we are trying to do here is to empower rural communities. I would be appalled if we missed this opportunity to empower our rural communities, when it is such an easy change to make.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 310 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, while also supporting all the other amendments in this group. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the Town and Country Planning Association, and as an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

Amendment 310 would create a duty for strategic authorities to consider the needs of rural communities. It specifically covers land use, development of land and regeneration, housing, employment, health and well-being. Several noble Lords have made the point that there are quite different considerations for these functions when addressing rural needs as opposed to those of urban communities. For example, on housing, many rural areas will see competition for available accommodation from those commuting from elsewhere, from rightsizing retirees and, in many places, from second-home buyers and those letting on a short-term basis of the Airbnb variety. Yet, on average, social housing accounts for just 11% of homes in rural locations, compared with 17% in the country as a whole. Younger people brought up in the locality, including those badly needed for public and private sector jobs, are forced to move away to find somewhere affordable.

On land use, there will be severe constraints on rural areas including green belts, areas of outstanding natural beauty—now known as national landscapes—and local constraints. But urban-rural differences apply to opportunities as well, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. For example, rural exception sites allow development that would not be permitted elsewhere, and there are opportunities to work with major landowners.

In many respects, there are substantial differences that require different policies and actions for rural communities, yet these communities are likely to comprise only a small fraction of the total population of a mayoralty or combined authority, and pressing priorities from the majority urban areas may drown out the rural voice. A duty to take on board the needs of rural communities would counter this imbalance.

Of course, the mayor or the combined authority could take a far-sighted approach to embracing the rural agenda for their area without any legislative prompting, but this is by no means guaranteed. The amendment provides the safety net that would make sure that rural issues are not neglected in places where towns and cities dominate. I strongly support the amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support all these amendments, and in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best. The tiny village where I have a house, 10 miles from Exeter, is not just a rural community but a farming community. For years, Exeter City Council has wanted to take over the area; those of us living in this tiny village and the other villages round about it know perfectly well that there is not a single person in the city council who has the slightest knowledge of anything to do with rural affairs. It is very important that the Government pick up and take on the fact that rural affairs need to be separately considered.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I believe that Amendment 306 in my name is extremely important. If the Government are persisting with these clean energy projects and insisting on removing the power of local residents to object to them, common sense would dictate that fire and rescue services should have the right to be statutory consultees, particularly where these clean energy projects are highly flammable and at risk of thermal runaway and could spread very quickly. These projects are often very close to schools, nurseries, housing and other existing developments, so I frankly find it weird and very alarming that these potentially highly flammable planning projects are not benefiting from advice from fire and rescue services. If they were statutory consultees, it would make the potential sites safer. I end on that note and ask the Minister in her heart to explain to the House this evening for what possible reason of safety and good practice fire and rescue services are not statutory consultees to these potentially very dangerous sites.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 307 would require every local planning authority and every strategic authority, separately or jointly, to appoint a qualified and experienced person to act as chief planner, as a number have done already. This amendment has been championed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who has been steadfast in his commitment to this reform, which he has maintained would accelerate housing delivery and growth. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who in Committee stressed the value of a high level of professional planning input for mayors and strategic authorities.

The proposal for a chief planner has been gathering momentum from the time of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. It has been promoted by the Royal Town Planning Institute with support from the Better Planning Coalition, which represents some 40 organisations in this sector. Just last week, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment recommended this approach to drive the professionalism and responsibility in decision-making that is required to unlock planning delays and command the level of respect needed when negotiating and liaising with senior local authority members.

The relationship between council members and their officers is changing. The Government’s policy for deregulation of planning decision-making means that decisions on whether a planning application should be taken to the planning committee or dealt with by planning officers alone will be determined by the elected member who chairs the planning committee and the chief planning officer. This procedure underlines the need for a senior figure to be identified with the status to assume this responsibility. It has also been suggested that the chief planner might have a formal role in ongoing training for council members with planning duties, a role that requires a person of seniority who commands respect.

Having a named chief planner who is fully qualified and experienced with the corresponding status attaching to the role provides, in the words of the chief planner for Newcastle City Council and the North East Combined Authority, the strategic direction and strong professional leadership that a planning authority needs. It creates a clear and trusted voice for our communities, our elected members and our developers. She concluded:

“Making this role statutory would strengthen our profession and inspire the next generation to aspire to be chief planners themselves”.


Meanwhile, the experience of taking this approach in Scotland has demonstrated its value there, not least in enabling everyone to identify the key person responsible for planning matters. It is worth noting that the amendment would enable authorities to choose to share a chief planner with one or more other authorities, if they so wish.

Here is a chance to help reverse the decline in the position of planning, raise morale and support the profession without costs to the Government. Planning departments have been starved of resources over recent decades, yet planning is set to be hugely important in the work of new mayoral and other strategic authorities. The RTPI’s latest survey of the state of the profession lists the recruitment and retention challenges. Local planning departments are short of up to a third of their staff. Two-thirds of them are using agency staff to fill gaps. Shortages of suitably qualified people mean delays that undermine new development and less proactive engagement before and during a planning application, leading to worse outcomes. The profession needs boosting, bolstering, encouraging and promoting, as well as very welcome additional government funding. This means changing perceptions and enhancing the status of a vital profession. Appointment of the key officer as chief planner would do much to achieve this.

In Committee the Minister said she would continue to keep this matter under review but would want

“to do a bit more work on this before we take any decisions on it”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 593.]

I hope that she has now been able to satisfy herself that this is a worthwhile initiative and that she is able to accept the amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, in this group I have Amendment 186, which would allow a separate cultural ecosystem plan to be put in place to sit beside the local growth plan. I was very heartened by the support for this amendment in Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He said this amendment

“really matters … because it is the means whereby clarity will be produced about who in the mayoral and local authorities is responsible for what”.

Furthermore, he drew attention to

“the need to ensure that local government maintains the key responsibility that it has always had for the development of cultural assets in its area”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 619.]

I could not have put it better myself.

Our cultural assets are an ecosystem that crosses boundaries as well as being hugely important at the local level, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, emphasises. We talked at some length about culture on the first group today, but I ask the Minister once again whether cultural ecosystem plans might be considered for the guidelines at the very least.

I have also put my name to Amendments 124, 127 and 246 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which she fully explained. Her agent of change amendment is hugely important. I will not repeat the arguments I gave in Committee except to say that the Music Venue Trust points out the significant difference between how the system works in England, where it is non-statutory and unsatisfactory, and in Scotland, where there is a statutory requirement and it works well. If the noble Baroness wishes to take this to a vote when the time comes, I will certainly support her in the Lobby.