Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I was mid-flow. I was making the case that, in the early days of business rates retention and pooling, there was an exceptionally compelling case to co-operate. Even if we gave away a little of our own growth as a local authority—I was the leader—the pot was large enough that we did not lose out. However, ever since, the incentive to grow through business rates retention and, in particular, pooling has become weaker and less compelling. It has been harder to demonstrate the benefits of growth to a sceptical population.

The trouble is that, through this instrument, it is not just that the train tracks have narrowed and the bid offer spread has become more constrained; a series of disincentives have made it significantly less attractive. I understand why there has to be a reset, but the cliff edge of the reset means that those councils that have worked hard to do the right thing are seeing that growth be snatched away. That is a pretty powerful disincentive to do the right thing.

Increasing redistribution means that, however well you do above the baseline, more and more gets taken away. That is a further disincentive. Now, there is an additional factor that weighs against the co-operation that makes everybody better off: the tweaks. It is more than a tweak, in fact; it is a tilting of the playing field against those who are growing hard and in favour of the indices of multiple deprivation.

I do not deny that some areas are poorer than others but, when you take into account each of these detractors from the incentive to grow, you find out that there are rewards for sitting back and not pushing the envelope. Those councils that can just sit back and wait for the others to do well are the undeserved beneficiaries. This is not to say that there should not be any redistribution—I am not making that case at all—but through this instrument and, in fairness, others over the past three or four years, we are getting to a situation where, if nobody is really incentivised to do the right thing, why should anybody do the right thing? Why should any council leader go out on a limb, as I did, to sell the benefits of growth and explain to residents and businesses, “If you come with me on this one, you’ll pay less council tax, the economy will be stronger, there’ll be more jobs”, and so on?

There is no taste in nothing. Diluting the incentives to do the right thing even more, as this instrument does, means that we will all end up in a rather tasteless situation that achieves neither what the Government crave nor what this nation deserves.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, first, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I agree with the two previous speakers that it is positive that there is a three-year settlement.

This instrument forms part of a wider set of reforms to the business rates retention system ahead of the 2026 reset. It makes a number of technical changes to how the system operates in practice, particularly in relation to the levy on growth, the safety net and the treatment of compensation for reliefs and multiplier changes. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Fuller have said, these regulations will have an impact on growth and incentives.

We recognise the Government’s stated intentions both to realign local government funding with need and to ensure that the system continues to function smoothly as wider reforms are introduced, but those objectives cannot come at the expense of undermining incentives for local economic growth and for high-performing councils. It is the Government’s stated intention to promote growth; I query how this instrument fits with that intention.

These regulations replace the existing levy cap with a system of marginal rates on growth. In many cases, the effect will be that local authorities retain less of the proceeds of the very development they are being asked to support. That raises a fundamental question: if councils see a diminishing or even negative financial return from growth, why would they take on the costs and complexities that often come with approving new development? As my noble friend Lord Fuller said, new development is not free; you may need to invest in infrastructure or provide incentives for someone to come to your area. There are also social costs in the wider sense, such as busier roads, the loss of green fields, busier doctors, a lack of GP surgeries and so on. What is the incentive for local councils and councillors to promote growth if there is no financial recompense that they can use to invest in their communities?

Local authorities are not passive actors in this system. They make those difficult decisions concerning planning, infrastructure and local services. If the link between growth and local benefit is weakened, the Government risk tilting the system away from enterprise and towards dependency on redistribution. I ask the Minister directly: what assessment has been made of the impact of these changes on councils’ willingness to bring forward new development? Can the Minister set out more clearly which types of authorities stand to lose out under these changes? What assessment has been made of the impact on local financial planning and rates collection as a result? This largely mirrors what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised around the idea of an impact assessment.

Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority Regulations 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations. We on these Benches support the principle of devolution. As the Minister outlined, these regulations will establish a new combined county authority for Brighton, Hove, East Sussex and West Sussex under the framework set up in the previous Conservative Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. However, there are some issues that merit closer scrutiny.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has already raised the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s comment on the consultation underpinning these proposals, which revealed significant public concern, particularly around the implementation of a mayoral model. A clear majority of respondents did not believe that such a structure would reflect local identities or deliver meaningful benefits. That raises an important question about how devolution is being delivered. If it is to succeed, it must carry public confidence. Does the Minister agree?

Secondly—I would welcome further clarification from the Minister here—there are questions about timing, funding and democratic accountability. The Government have been clear that they intend to establish mayoral strategic authorities in devolution priority programme areas as quickly as possible. Indeed, we are told that the legislation for Sussex and Brighton is already being progressed and that institutions will be set up with the consent of constituent councils. However, as my noble friend Lord Porter pointed out, at the same time the Government have confirmed that the inaugural mayoral elections in these areas have been delayed until May 2028. That is much later than originally planned and is accompanied with a delay to the full powers, such as strategic planning, CPO and, importantly, full mayoral funding, which will be only 40% of that originally promised in the interim. Parties had already selected their candidates and were preparing for an election, so why is the mayoral election being delayed? Why can the full funding not be implemented now? It was on that basis that the councils involved embarked on the devolution programme, but the Government are not fulfilling their end of the programme.

The justification offered for this delay is that it allows time for local government reorganisation and the establishment of robust institutions. That is a weak excuse. Having experienced devolution first hand, I know that previous programmes have been delivered to a tighter, clearer timetable without the need for constant postponement of elections or, more recently, their reinstatement. It creates an unusual and uncomfortable position. We are being asked to approve the creation of a new strategic authority, the transfer of powers to it and the establishment of an institutional framework without a directly elected mayor in place for another two years. In effect, structures of devolution are being put in place while the democratic leadership is deferred until later. Can the Minister clarify the interim governance arrangements and, in particular, who is ultimately accountable to the public during this interim period for the exercise of these new powers? We appreciate that this instrument does not in itself determine the timing of elections, but it is inseparable from that broader context, and it is entirely reasonable for this Committee to probe how these arrangements will operate in practice.

To be clear, we are supportive of the creation of the Sussex and Brighton combined county authority in principle, but we are aware that devolution must be locally supported and democratically grounded from the outset. Also, the terms of the deal with the residents of Sussex should not be changed half way through the process. On that basis, I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on how accountability will be maintained in the period before May 2028 and whether any consideration has been given to shortening that timetable. I also commend my noble friend Lord Porter on his important question regarding pensions and look forward to the Minister’s response on that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and their broad support for the Sussex and Brighton authority, which I think is broadly welcomed in the local area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the 6,000 responses. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral combined authority over that proposed geography. Unsurprisingly, respondents provided a range of views, including evidence setting out the potential benefits, as well as some concerns. The Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State on the relevant statutory tests, as set out in Section 46 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The Secretary of State’s decision was that those tests were met. It is not surprising that knowing how exactly this will work might have been a concern for some people, but I have looked at the evidence that came back and there was a pretty equal balance between the concerns and the things that people thought were a plus.

The noble Baroness mentioned scrutiny arrangements. I am not sure whether she was here the other day when we debated this on the English devolution Bill. The Government are bringing forward arrangements in that Bill to introduce local scrutiny committees with powers to scrutinise what the mayor is doing. Her noble friend Lord Shipley has raised this with me on a number of occasions, as he was concerned that those bodies should have powers to undertake pre-scrutiny. They will have those powers. This will be a powerful body to make sure that the mayor’s work gets scrutinised properly.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised LGR and asked why the mayoral arrangements are not being put in place until the foundation strategic authorities have been set up. The Government’s carefully considered decision is that we need resilient and sustainable authorities in place, and then the mayors will be elected. That is how we are taking that forward.

On the noble Baroness’s point about the review of mayoral arrangements, there are a huge number of advantages to them. Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive economic growth. They have standing and soft power to convene local partners to tackle shared problems, directly exercise devolved powers and attract inward investment. They also have a platform for tackling the obstacles to growth that need a regional approach. Mayors are accountable directly to their citizens and have the profile to stand up for them on the national stage. They are able to both partner with and challenge central government where needed. That partnering on the national stage is critical. We now have the mayoral council to enable the regions represented by mayors to sit around the table and represent them to national government, which is really powerful. We are seeing that voice being amplified for local people in many areas that already have mayors, including Manchester, which the noble Baroness mentioned, London and the West Midlands, as well as other areas that are still developing but nevertheless are exercising their mayoral role powerfully.

The noble Baroness also asked whether councils and taxpayers will fund the CCA. The Government will support with the costs associated with the new authority through capacity funding, and the authority will also receive its investment fund as well as devolved funding for specific functions such as transport and adult skills. Beyond the support provided by the Government, the budgets of strategic authorities and how any costs are funded will be a local decision. The extent to which the constituent councils need to contribute at all to the running of the authority will therefore be decided locally.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for his comment about this being a price worth paying to get power out of Westminster. That has long been my view, and we have had many discussions about it over the years. First, on the pensions pot, we are still making decisions on how the LGR will be taken forward, but that has not yet been announced. The Government are considering those questions and will respond in due course, so the foundation strategic authorities will hold the ring on pension provision for now, until the mayors come into post.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked why we cannot have mayoral authorities now. I think I have explained that we want to make sure that these foundation strategic authorities are on a firm footing before we bring in the mayoral arrangement. He spoke about democratic arrangements. Once they come into post, the mayors will be directly elected across the whole area. Nevertheless, representatives on the foundation strategic authorities have their own democratic mandate, because they will be nominated from the councils concerned.

On the funding that the strategic authorities will receive, we will support with the costs associated with the new authorities. Sussex and Brighton have received £1.5 million this year in capacity funding to help towards establishment, and will receive a further £7.5 million over the next three years to help with core running costs. They will also receive the 30-year mayoral investment fund once the mayor is in post, as I have said. That will be £38 million a year, £1.14 billion over the 30 years. They will receive a portion of this in the two years prior to the mayor being elected to support the early delivery of growth priorities, and will also receive other devolved funding such as for transport and adult skills.

It is essential that the benefits of devolution are not delayed, and that is why, in the interim period between the establishment of the mayoral strategic authority and the inaugural mayoral elections, we will provide the authorities with a proportion of their investment funds, so that they can start delivering on key local priorities and deliver some benefits ahead of the mayor taking office. The strategic authority will have a number of functions available in the interim period to enable and encourage investment in the area, subject to Royal Assent to the Bill. These include: the general power of competence, with the duty to develop a local growth plan and the power to borrow to an agreed cap; a health improvement and health inequalities duty; functions to acquire land, provide housing and build infrastructure, enabling it to make strategic interventions and support local growth ambitions; and responsibility for public transport and local transport planning, joining up the transport network across the region and helping people get to work, education and leisure activities.

In conclusion, this instrument delivers the commitment made with Sussex and Brighton to establish a combined county authority. I hope the Committee will welcome the regulations.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

When we have requested a timetable for devolution elsewhere, the Minister has said that elections in May 2028 would be held not only in the six priority areas but in a number of other authorities, as part of this devolution. I am slightly confused as, if there is a need for the six priority areas to have this period of time, having already started the process towards May 2028, how will those that have not even started the process be able to do it by then? By inference, if the others can do it more quickly, why can these not do it more quickly, so that we could have those elections earlier? My noble friend Lord Porter suggested possibly May 2027.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The time periods are quite compressed, as the next tranche of 14 areas will be decided before the Summer Recess. The decision-making is quite close together and it is up to us to make sure that we get these SIs through, so that the foundation strategic authorities are in place before the mayoral elections all take place in 2028.

Birmingham City Council and Unite: Refuse Workers’ Pay

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Throughout the dispute, the Government’s priority has been the residents of Birmingham. During the worst disruption, in spring 2025, the Government provided intensive support to local partners to respond to the public health crisis that was arising then because of the all-out strike action. The result was to establish a regular contingency waste collection service, despite the industrial action. While the contingency service delivers basic services, there have been periods of missed collections. We continue to monitor the situation and the associated impact on local communities, but for the moment the contingency service is delivering a service to the people of Birmingham.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, last year Birmingham’s Conservative group published a clear plan to end the bin strikes, reinstate weekly collections and resolve the equal pay liabilities. Labour rejected that plan, claiming that negotiations were progressing well. Do the Government regret that decision, which could have stopped the strikes 12 months ago? Will the Government ensure that constructive opposition proposals that put residents first are properly considered?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The Conservative Party in Birmingham should not wash its hands of some of the part it played in creating the crisis that Birmingham is facing overall. Birmingham’s recent history has seen one of the largest equal pay crises in modern times. Over the past 15 years, this has cost the council and the people of Birmingham a great deal of money. In October last year, the council signed the agreement with the unions to settle the historic equal pay claims that had amounted. This was a significant step forward to move past a dark moment in the city’s history and in resetting relationships with staff and their trade union representatives. Talks are ongoing to resolve this current issue.

Stamp Duty: Periodic Tenancies

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We had much discussion about this during the passage of the Act, and we are working very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to implement the reforms. Work is progressing well to ensure that the courts and tribunals have the resources and capacity they need to handle the additional workload that the reforms may generate. Work is also progressing on the new digital end-to-end service for resolving all possession claims in the county courts in England and Wales. Ultimately, the Act should reduce demand on the county courts, because possession claims will be able to be brought only where there is a valid reason for the landlord to do so.

The noble Baroness is quite right about local authorities. We are helping councils to build their enforcement capacity and get ready for implementation. We have provided new burdens funding, and we have funded the Operation Jigsaw network of local councils to deliver bespoke training on the Act.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, many noble Lords across the House raised concerns about its impact on the private rental market—with landlords leaving the market, seeking to raise rents and using Section 21 before the implementation of the Act, which does little to stop rogue landlords. Does the Minister consider the reports of Labour donor Asif Aziz’s company Criterion Capital issuing large numbers of Section 21 eviction notices, if true, a rational response to the Act or the action of a rogue landlord?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the noble Lord will know, the basis of the Renters’ Rights Act was made under the previous Government. We wanted to make sure that we tackle the issues in the housing market and have done so with a very effective piece of legislation. On mass evictions, the latest Ministry of Justice landlord possession action statistics published in February showed a 17% reduction in county court Section 21 landlord-accelerated possession claims in quarter 4 compared with the same quarter in 2024. We have given a strong message that responsible landlords have nothing to fear from the reforms; they will have access to a wide range of possession grounds where they are needed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the difficulty the public have with the word “consultation” is that they often dismiss it as being a mere sop by those who want to change the order of things, whatever that might be. Consultation is frequently used; it is a basic part of the planning process. Often, members of the public make representations based on planning law, the NPPF and local plans, but nevertheless the developers overcome those objections. It is the same with changes to the structure of local authorities. Consultation has become, “You can have your say, but in the end you’re going to be overruled”.

With something as serious as this, where land has been donated for public use for many years and held in trust—a word we need to reflect on—for public use, it should not be easy to remove that public trust, in effect removing the public from the trust. In my view, using a device called consultation is totally inadequate in those circumstances. There ought to be a different way of determining whether land should be taken out of that protection.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this is an issue that we remember well from debating the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, now an Act. I am pleased that the Government and my noble friend Lord Banner have been able to work together on this and have, I believe, come to an agreed position. I am also grateful that my noble friend has been able to lend his significant expertise to the drafting of Amendment 222C to help find a solution. However, as we are only in Committee, we will need a little more time to go through it thoroughly before we consider giving it our support.

In the meantime, can the Minister please update us on the wider review of existing protections, so that communities, local authorities and developers can have clarity about when and how land is protected, which she committed to during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? Has this review been conducted? If so, what was the outcome and has it been published? If not, when will it be conducted?

We are also aware of the impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the Day case. That needs looking at in detail. Will the Government look into the case of Wimbledon specifically, given the enormous importance of Wimbledon to our national sporting life and the contentious issues at stake? Would a targeted inquiry into that case be appropriate? I would be grateful if the Minister could give her view on these points.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everybody for their patience while we have had to adjourn the Committee several times for voting. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his Amendment 222C and for his engagement on this matter. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank the noble Lord for his very careful consideration and constructive efforts to address the issue at hand. We need a mechanism to close this lacuna in the law, while ensuring balanced decisions can be made in the public interest. In my view, Amendment 222C does just that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Banner, set out, and as we discussed during debates on what is now the Planning and Infrastructure Act, there is currently no way of releasing such statutory trust if the statutory advertisement procedure is not followed. This means that the land is bound by the trust in perpetuity, which can risk holding up important developments that may be in the public interest—for example, the building of important new amenities and facilities for the local community. The amendment would provide a practical solution to this issue, while still ensuring that balanced decisions are made in the public interest. The noble Lord helpfully set out the safeguards enshrined in the qualifying conditions, which the Secretary of State will have to consider to make a discharge order.

The issues around community rights are, of course, very important. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised this but the amendment would embed a robust public interest test and significant transparency safeguards. Before any statutory trust discharge order can be made, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all six of those qualifying conditions are met, including full compliance with the new publicity requirements and a broad public interest test. I remind the Committee that the conditions are: nature conservation, landscape conservation, public rights of access, features of historic interest or archaeological remains, development proposals, and economic, environmental or social benefits, which the order would facilitate, if made. This is a transparent, evidence-based process and it would ensure that trusts can be discharged only where it is demonstrably in the public interest to do so.

The purpose of Amendment 222C is to provide clarity for those who are already impacted by this lacuna in the law. It does not address past failures to follow the advertising procedure. However, it places additional requirements on local authorities to co-operate with the Secretary of State to identify if this procedure has not been followed. Most importantly, the application process and advertising procedure in the amendment would maintain the core elements of the Local Government Act 1972 by ensuring that communities have opportunities to make representations, should they object to the release of the statutory trust held for public recreation.

The proposed amendment also provides that a statutory trust may be released only where this is in the public interest, which the advertised provision in the Local Government Act does not specify. I feel that, to some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has misunderstood the narrow focus and purpose of this amendment, and the rigorous guardrails that have been placed around it. We need a method of resolving an issue. This amendment effectively allows that public consultation to be responded to in a Secretary of State process where it has been omitted originally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, I apologise for being a Johnny-come-lately, having left my noble friends to do all the heavy lifting on this Bill. I have come to raise only one issue: the concern that many of us have about the prevalence of gambling premises on our high streets.

In raising that issue, I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform and the chair of Action on Gambling. Many noble Lords will be aware of the serious concerns about the large number of gambling premises, particularly betting shops and adult gaming centres, on many of our high streets. Only a few weeks ago a Minister wrote in a Written Answer:

“Some high streets have become increasingly dominated by certain types of premises—including gambling establishments—which don’t always meet the needs of their communities. According to the Gambling Commission, the number of adult gaming centres (AGCs) rose by 7% between 2022 and 2024, with additional data showing that AGCs are most concentrated in areas of higher deprivation”.


That last point was confirmed by the NHS’s Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which confirmed that the most deprived local authorities have three times more gambling premises per head of population than the least deprived local authorities. Research shows not only very clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and all the problems that brings to the individuals, their families and their communities.

As a result, communities across the country have been demanding that local councils take action to stop the proliferation. But, as has been seen in many council areas—Peterborough, Brent and numerous others—they have come up against a stumbling block: Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005. This is the so-called aim to permit section, under which the default position that councils have to take is that they must permit the use of premises for gambling unless there are specific reasons not to do so. Councils that have tried to stop new gambling venues have often had lawyers from the very powerful and wealthy gambling companies to contend with and have always ended up losing.

No wonder Brent Council, which has been leading a group of councils to try to bring about change to get more power, has come up with a little card pointing out that it is easier to block a fast food joint opening next door to a school than it is to stop a high street casino next door to a homeless shelter. Quite simply, planning and licensing authorities need additional powers to regulate the circumstances in which they authorise or reject premises being used for gambling.

On numerous occasions the Government have said that they wanted to do exactly this. The Pride in Place strategy, published on 25 September 2025, said:

“We … want to empower local authorities to curate healthy, vibrant public spaces that reflect the needs of their communities”.


It reaffirmed the Government’s commitment

“to strengthen councils’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets”.

That is a clear commitment and has been repeated by the Prime Minister and other Ministers time after time. Sadly, the answer has been not to rule out the aim to permit but to come up with another solution. This alternative way forward was based on the solution to a problem that used to exist when there was a growth in the number of premises selling alcohol, and it is the basis for my amendment today.

That solution enabled local authorities to review and consult on the number and impact of the existing relevant premises, including pubs, in a particular area. Are there too many? Are there enough, or could we have some more? That was called a cumulative impact assessment. If that CIA concluded that there were already enough pubs in an area and that an extra one would harm the well-being of the community, it could be used to reject a licence for an additional one.

That idea of a cumulative impact assessment being used for gambling premises was picked up by the Conservative Government when they were in power. Their White Paper on gambling said categorically:

“We will align the regimes for alcohol and gambling licensing by introducing cumulative impact assessments”,


for gambling licences,

“when Parliamentary time allows”.

The new Government have come to the same conclusion. The Prime Minister announced that it is the Government’s intention to introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows, and Ministers have used it time after time in answers to Written Questions.

During the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, I argued that it provided the necessary parliamentary time, so I introduced an amendment that would have provided CIAs for gambling licences. The Government accepted that it was a great idea and they really wanted to do it, but told me that that was not the right Bill to do it in. I was confused at the time as to why that was but nevertheless accepted it. I am very much hoping that we have another Bill which is the right Bill in which to do it. My Amendment 235F would therefore bring forward, as I have done previously, the giving of the power to local councils to use cumulative impact assessments to address, where it is appropriate, concerns about additional gambling premises coming to a particular area.

I hope the Minister will agree at least in principle to the amendment. If she is in any way unhappy with any of the details, I hope she will agree to work with me and other interested parties so we can resolve them and bring back an amendment that is acceptable to all parties at a later stage in the Bill, therefore giving councils the additional powers they need to curb the proliferation of gambling venues with all the problems they can create on our high streets.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment. Having listened to his arguments, I believe he is right that local authorities should not only have the ability to but should take into account cumulative impact before deciding on planning applications for gambling premises.

This would not be an outright ban on premises being used for gambling, nor would it encourage local authorities to come to a particular conclusion or other. Rather, this would allow councillors to make a reference to cumulative impact assessments and adopt an evidenced-based approach on planning matters. Local authorities should be empowered to respond and make planning decisions according to their communities’ needs, and they are best placed to interpret the evidence and act proportionately. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his amendment, for all the work he continues to do on tackling gambling harms—it is much appreciated—and for raising this very important topic. I assure him the Government are committed to introducing cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing. Once introduced, these will help local authorities take evidence-based decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. They will also create a presumption against new gambling premises licences being granted in specific areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, this is not about banning gambling premises; it is about assessing the harms and being able to deal with those.

Anyone who has been a councillor will know the issue, how this works and how it can cause detriment to high streets, so I absolutely support the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. As drafted, it would introduce cumulative impact assessments to guide planning decisions. However, the cumulative impact assessments will be most effective for local authorities when specifically applied to the licensing process and licensing applications, rather than simultaneously applying to planning and licensing. This would match the approach already taken by licensing authorities when using cumulative impact assessments in relation to the licensing of alcohol premises, which the noble Lord mentioned. The planning and licensing regimes are separate legal frameworks. This amendment risks creating inconsistencies between a local authority’s planning process and licensing process.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would require the planning authority to consider a cumulative impact assessment published by the licensing authority during the planning process. By granting this power to the planning authority, the amendment risks conflating the licensing and planning regimes. The noble Lord is quite correct to say that licensing is in the scope of the Bill. However, this amendment would not allow local authorities to use cumulative impact assessments in the most suitable and effective way and risks creating conflict between the planning and licensing regimes. That is our concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the valuable contributions of noble Lords in this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing this amendment forward. As has been highlighted, local area energy plans could be helpful in addressing how local energy infrastructure can cope with the pressure of increased housing and commercial targets from central government in the context of a changing energy environment in their local areas.

Paragraph (d) would also require that the Secretary of State’s report includes,

“proposals for funding, technical support, training, and capacity building initiatives”

to ensure that local authorities are capable and well-equipped to introduce local area energy plans. In addition, the amendment insists on clear evaluation, criteria and success metrics for any pilots carried out.

I commend the noble Lord on his amendment, which rightly recognises that authorities must have the means to ensure that the local energy infrastructure can meet the needs of economic and housing growth and provide resilient energy. However, I would hesitate before introducing a statutory requirement for local area energy plans. If we are serious about community empowerment and trusting local representatives to determine what is right for the areas, it should be up to individual local authorities to set targets for which local area energy plans might be needed. There is also the question of the resources and powers that would be given to local authorities, without which plans would be undeliverable.

Finally, and crucially, energy systems are part of a broader national energy system, where all parts must work together in an integrated manner. This cannot be looked at in isolation, although those plans will obviously be a hugely helpful contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for Amendment 241 and for meeting me to discuss his proposals. The Government continue to work in partnership with local government, recognising the important role that local authorities play in reaching net zero and achieving our clean power 2030 mission.

We recognise that in support of local and national net-zero targets some local authorities have developed local area energy plans and have found them very helpful. We also welcome the work that many local authorities have already undertaken to incorporate planning for future energy needs into work such as the development of local growth plans and their contribution to the development of regional energy strategic plans.

Perhaps there has been a slight misrepresentation of the fact that there is no co-ordination to this. It is being co-ordinated. In fact, NESO published the transitional regional energy strategic plan on 30 January 2026. These plan for energy needs over the next few years at a regional level but include a lot of energy-related data at a lower super output area—that is, neighbourhood level. This will influence business planning for distribution network operators across the country. NESO recently consulted on the methodology for enduring regional energy strategic plans, which will be developed in partnership with local communities and implemented by the end of 2028.

However, the amendment, as drafted, risks duplicating or constraining current activity in this area. For example, the recently published transitional regional energy strategic plans contain a wealth of data on energy at local authority level and neighbourhood level as well as an assessment of regional energy infrastructure need consistently across all regions.

The local net-zero hubs have also worked with Energy Systems Catapult on Ready for RESP to support local and regional stakeholders to help deliver energy system planning aligned with investment plans and planning needs. This work included updating which places have already developed local area energy plans. Local net-zero hubs’ most recent report, published on 5 February, sets out some of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to local decarbonisation plans. I welcome that as a very helpful approach to take. In parallel, the Government are aware of work undertaken by the Local Government Association to consider options for a statutory duty that we plan to discuss at a future, ministerially chaired, local net-zero delivery group.

We are sympathetic to the points raised in this debate and in previous debates on energy planning by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We are yet to be convinced that a national statutory requirement to produce local area energy plans would support local authorities rather than reducing their flexibility to produce plans that meet their needs. We continue to discuss with the Local Government Association and others the benefits of statutory duties on net zero, and we will continue current research in this area. I hope that, with these reasons and explanations, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

By opposing this clause and Schedule 34, Baroness Scott of Bybrook seeks to remove the ban on upward only rent reviews.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the stand-part notices and the amendment in the group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. Our intention is to oppose Clause 85 and Schedule 34, which seek to abolish long-standing, upward-only commercial rent reviews, standing part of the Bill, while Amendment 254 proposes a review of the market impacts of rent review provisions. I speak with a deep concern for the stability, liquidity and long-term health of the commercial property market and for the businesses, pensions, investors and communities who depend on it.

Clause 85 and Schedule 34 would enact an outright ban on upward-only rent reviews in new and renewed commercial leases. This represents one of the most interventionist market reforms in modern commercial leasing, yet it arrives without the benefit of any industry consultation. The British Property Federation has been clear that it does not support the Government’s blanket ban and expresses its concern about the absence of proper consultation. Why are the Government not listening?

The existing evidence is clear. Upward-only rent reviews have long underpinned confidence in UK commercial property as an investment asset. These proposed changes have caused widespread concern in the sector. We have heard that upward-only rent reviews provide vital income certainty and support property valuations by ensuring that rental income cannot decline mid-lease—an important factor for institutional investors and particularly lenders assessing long-term risk. Lawrence Stephens, one of the main real estate lawyers, notes that outlawing upward-only rent reviews will undermine the perceived security of rental income and place developers at a disadvantage when seeking finance—a consequence that risks delaying regeneration projects and suppressing new commercial investment. There is a significant concern that the Government’s proposed changes will have a widespread impact on market stability and investment confidence, affecting everything from property values to regeneration projects. Can the Minister please tell us whether the Government have taken this analysis into account and how they plan to mitigate it?

The likely effects of these measures on business tenancies that the Government claim to support cannot be ignored. Landlords will inevitably respond to this change by front-loading rents and shortening lease terms to protect themselves against the prospect of downward-only risk exposure. This would most significantly impact the very businesses that the Bill says it aims to help, especially those that require stability over the long term.

My opposition to Clause 85 and Schedule 34 standing part of the Bill reflects several key concerns: reduced investment in liquidity, threatening regional development; shorter lease durations with fewer stable long-term tenancies; higher initial rents, counteracting the Government’s aim of supporting the high street; increased financing costs, making commercial development harder to deliver; and a slowing down of regeneration projects across the country, especially in areas dependent on external investment, thereby hampering growth, which the Government say is their number one priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for Amendment 234. I will start with the stand part notices for Clause 85 and Schedule 34.

Upwards-only rent reviews have been a long-standing issue for businesses throughout England and Wales. The British Independent Retailers Association and UKHospitality gave evidence in the other place about just how damaging the practice is and why they have campaigned for decades for the Government to take action. The practice of upward-only rent reviews has an invidious effect on the efficiency and accessibility of the commercial property market—not to mention the impact on our high streets and town centres that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, outlined. It is designed to ensure that landlords and investors are insured against market conditions, but there is a cost to this, which falls chiefly on the business tenants left paying excessive rents when they are already stretched to breaking point, unable to invest or improve their productivity, or, in times of hardship, to keep the lights on or pay their staff wages.

Ultimately, these clauses make running a business less viable, damaging the competitiveness of the economy. Alongside reform of business rates, banning these clauses will help make commercial rents fairer and more efficient, help businesses invest and give them greater resilience to economic conditions. In recognition that these clauses can provide some security to investors, we have committed to consult on how caps and collars could be used. I reassure noble Lords that the Government intend to work carefully and closely with the property industry and others to implement this policy, help manage risk and maintain confidence in the market, without relying on one-sided mechanisms such as upwards-only rent review clauses.

I turn to Amendment 254. I understand the desire to consider the impacts of legislation once it has passed. However, 12 months is too limited a period to see the ban fully implemented and the market adjusted. The Bill’s impact assessment also finds that the ban is likely to have a net positive impact on the UK economy because it will make the commercial property market more efficient, reducing rents for tenants who can instead invest in their businesses and help keep consumer prices low. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments. There may be a slight misunderstanding here. Our key point is that this is a very significant change to the commercial property market, and it has not been done with the industry. The Minister said that she would “work carefully and closely” to implement it. It would have been better to have worked closely and carefully with the industry in developing it. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Our issue is with a blanket ban rather than looking at how we can come up with a potential system that works better for all parties. I am glad that she is more supportive of our amendment.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I am dreadfully sorry; I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Can we have that officially minuted? I share those concerns. The key point is that we need something that works.

I wish to point out that upward-only rent reviews are nowhere near the biggest problem facing businesses up and down the high street. They are contending with devastating increases in business rates and are facing increased regulation, increases in national insurance charges and the effects of changes to the minimum wage. Although we would all like a higher minimum wage, it must be affordable.

The Government’s solution—tearing out a long-established market measure without proper consideration, without careful engagement with the sector and without understanding the consequences for investment and lending to commercial markets—is a high-risk strategy. The question today is not whether commercial tenants deserve fair terms—they do—but whether the proposal before us is the right one. There are too many uncertainties and risks that have been left unaddressed.

We will seek to revisit this issue on Report. I hope that, by then, the Government will have reflected on the concerns raised today and will come forward with proposals grounded not in assertion but in evidence, balance and economic reality. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my clause stand part notice.

Clause 85 agreed.

Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

As noble Lords can see, there are lots of questions here. I appreciate that there will not be any answers but, for me, bigger does not equal better—there is no evidence for that. I emphasise the value of enabling the link between the elected and the electors to remain a vibrant part of our democracy. Every other part of western Europe has a better ratio of electors to elected than this country does. The United States, despite everything that goes on there, has a much better ratio at various levels. In my view, this is an error on its own. Given that, and given the difficulties that this will create, I hope the Minister will be able to respond to some of my questions, in particular by telling us the debt levels of the councils that are being absorbed into both unitaries.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument. I wish to make noble Lords aware of my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. I do not think it is an interest, but I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.

There are a number of concerns here, which I hope the Minister will be able to address, some of which overlap with those that have been aired. First, as has just been said, the Government’s consultation demonstrated that there was a clear preference among residents—albeit a fairly small number of them: 5,000 out of 1.2 million—for a three-unitary model, not the two-authority model imposed by this order. However, on 28 October 2025, the Secretary of State confirmed that there would be a two-unitary structure. The Minister argued that two authorities will be cheaper and deliver greater efficiencies, but, if efficiency alone were the overriding criterion, would that not point logically towards a single unitary? Where local preference and ministerial preference diverge so clearly, this Committee is entitled to ask why local voices were overridden and what weight was truly given to the consultation process.

Secondly, on finance, Surrey’s councils face acute financial pressures, not least because of the high debt levels at Woking Borough Council of around £2 billion and more than £1 billion at Spelthorne. Although the Minister mentioned the £500 million of support for Woking, there has been no central debt write-off. The financial risks of reorganisation, including the risk that projected savings fail to materialise, will ultimately fall on local taxpayers. The Minister said that this would be under review, but can she provide more certainty for local residents than a tenuous statement that this will be looked at in the future?

I would like to raise the issue of SEND deficits, which are around £350 million for Surrey. The recent announcement was that SEND deficits will be covered up to 90%, yet in the negotiations as part of this reorganisation a figure of £100 million has been mentioned. Clearly, that is different. Can the Minister clarify whether there will genuinely be 90% funding for SEND deficits, or whether this is also a tenuous statement?

The Government have announced £63 million nationally to support local government reorganisation. While any support is very welcome, that figure has to be shared across all areas undertaking structural change. Can the Minister confirm how much Surrey will receive, when those funds will be released and whether the Government accept that the real implementation costs, which locally have been estimated to be substantially higher, will exceed this funding envelope, particularly given the delays and changes in direction of the process?

Thirdly, on devolution, residents were led to believe that the structural change would be accompanied by meaningful devolution and a mayoral model. The Government have referred to a foundation strategic authority for Surrey, but assurances about its powers, funding and timing remain ambiguous. What is the Government’s firm commitment to establishing that body, when will it be created, what additional funding will accompany it and when will that funding be received? Structural upheaval without genuine devolution would be a poor bargain for the residents of Surrey. Reorganisation on this scale must command confidence. It must be locally supported, financially credible and embedded with a clear devolution settlement. At present, serious questions remain on all three counts.

We seek clarity about transitional governance. Commissioners were appointed to oversee financial sustainability and governance improvements at Woking and Spelthorne Borough Councils. We are now beyond the indicated review period for these appointments. Have they been extended and, if so, until when? Will they continue into the shadow authority period following the upcoming May elections? Where will they be placed in the subsequent authorities? The Committee deserves clarity about who will hold responsibility and accountability during the transition.

More broadly, I reflect on the process. In Surrey, the pathway to reorganisation has been clear for more than a year, with the timetable for elections to the new unitaries and implementation on 1 April 2027 set out. Why has the same clarity not applied to the mayoral timetable? Why have the Government not adhered to a clear and published schedule for the establishment of a mayor of Surrey?

This raises a wider question. Other devolution deals and local government reorganisations have appeared to be far less orderly, with altered timetables and delayed and then not delayed elections but without the equivalent certainty about the final structure. Those of us who have been through previous rounds of local government reorganisation know that while elections were sometimes postponed for a year, that was done on the basis of clarity about the end state. Why could the Government not achieve the same coherence elsewhere?

Finally, I return to the question that the Minister studiously avoided answering in the Chamber last week. While the Government initially decided to postpone the council elections scheduled for May 2026, relying on statutory powers and legal advice, that decision was subsequently reversed on 16 February 2026, following further legal advice. I am not seeking disclosure of that advice; I simply ask what changed. What change of circumstances or what change of information provided meant that the legal advice changed? Legal advice is revised when there is a change of circumstance or in the information provided, so what changed? The Committee is entitled to understand the reasoning behind such significant changes in democratic decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their considered contributions today. I recognise that they have a great deal of experience in this area, so they were very thoughtful contributions indeed. I will try to pick up all the points that have been made. If I miss any, I am sure noble Lords will let me know, but I will try to pick them up from Hansard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked more broadly about the benefits of reorganisation and pointed to the savings that might accrue. Although financial savings are important, this restructuring is also about delivering the kinds of profiles for councils that are able to drive forward the growth and improvement in public services that we all want to see, and having a system that is not as confusing for residents as the two-tier system has been in the past. In their proposal, Surrey County Council, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council estimated ongoing net annual benefits after five years of up to £46 million, with a midpoint of around £23 million and total implementation costs of £85 million. So there are financial savings to accrue from this, after the initial cost of doing the reorganisation.

We hope that there will be savings, but it is important that we focus on sustainability. With the way it was going, we were not looking at a sustainable future for local government. We have partly addressed that through the fair funding formula—I will talk more about that in a moment—and in this reorganisation and devolution process. Reorganisation creates the conditions for stronger local democracy, fewer politicians, and a clear picture with no conflicting mandates and agendas.

I appreciate what the noble Baroness said about the local voice, and I will come on to the wards and things in a moment, but clear local leadership allows councils to take the decisions needed to drive growth, deliver better public services and allow communities to be represented, while clear accountability makes sure that communities can properly hold leaders to account. Strong leadership and clear accountability are harder to achieve, where, for the same place, there are two council leaders, each with a legitimate democratic mandate and sometimes having different and conflicting agendas. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is important. Making sure we have preventive, holistic services, which are far more effective in picking up problems early, instead of them being split between two local authorities, is important.

Residents can access the services that they need with one council in charge. To give noble Lords an example, in 2018, Leicestershire County Council reported that more than 140,000 people called the wrong local council when they were trying to get help. I understand that it is not always the same as that everywhere, but it is an important principle to keep to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. I have a question for clarity, as it potentially impacts some of the comments that she might make subsequently. If I heard her correctly, this whole reorganisation is being driven by the need to have sustainable councils to cover the debts of Woking and Spelthorne—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

No, I did not say that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

That is fine—that is why I am seeking clarification. If we put that to one side, the Minister’s implication was that the Government might not have gone with this structure. I want to be clear that the residents of the other nine borough councils are not being impacted or hamstrung by the need to address the issues with the other two. That would be a very unfortunate scenario. I am just asking for clarity.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand why the noble Lord asked that question. I apologise— I hope that I did not mislead in what I said. The criteria that we set out for this process are very clear. We looked at the criteria right across the board, and they are there to make sure that this new structure is less confusing for people, that all the services are in one council and that the structure can drive the economic growth needed and provide high-quality public services. However, as we look at those important wider criteria, it is very important that we take account of the unique circumstances of Surrey—you cannot ignore them. It is in that sense that we took the decision to have two councils.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the size of these new councils. East Surrey will have a population of 556,000, and West Surrey 672,000. Councils of this size are not without precedent. Many of the councils formed in the past 20 years had populations of more than 500,000 when they were established, including North Yorkshire, Somerset, Buckinghamshire and Cornwall. However, it is very important that I stress the point that 500,000 is a guideline. I do not think any inference should be drawn across the wider programme of local government reorganisation from these decisions taken for Surrey. Each application will be considered on its own merits. We have said all the way through this that 500,000 is a guideline, not a template. I hope that is helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the number of councillors and wards. For east Surrey there will be 72 councillors, which is two per ward on 36 strategic council divisions, and for west Surrey it will be 90 councillors, which is two per ward on 45 divisions. I hope that is helpful in terms of the straightforward sizes.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord asked me some questions around local elections going ahead outside Surrey, and I understand why he keeps pressing me on the point about the changes to the legal advice. The legal advice did change and that advice is privileged; I cannot give him the detail of what has changed in the advice, because that would mean that it is not privileged anymore. I am sorry not to be able to do that but, as he will be aware, following legal advice, the Government withdrew their original decision to postpone 30 local elections in May, and an order revoking the local authorities SI has now been laid in Parliament, as of 17 February. All local elections will now go ahead in May 2026.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

If the Minister has almost finished, I shall just intervene on a couple of points for clarity. On the unsupported debt that we have talked about, the Minister talked about a 7.5% increase in core funding over three years. I assume that that is based on 5% increases in council tax over three years. Residents of Surrey will see council tax rising twice as fast as core funding and, if inflation stays at its current level, see core funding in real terms being less than inflation. I would call that a cut rather than an increase in funding.

I appreciate the Minister’s comments on SEND funding. In the discussions that are going on as part of the reorganisation, the offer was substantially less than 90%. I think that Surrey would be delighted if the Minister could confirm that it would be 90% of the figure. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer that here and now.

On the point of legal advice, you go and seek legal advice a second time when something has changed, when you have received new information or circumstances have changed. I am not looking for the legal advice itself; I am asking what prompted going to get legal advice a second time. What was the change in circumstance or information that prompted the need to get legal advice a second time? Good legal advice should not change if circumstances and information are the same. I would appreciate some clarity on that but, again, I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer that here and now.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will take the last point first. My understanding is that the usual practice is for legal advice to be reviewed over the course of a legal case going on. That is standard practice and is what happened in this case. I cannot add anything further to that at the moment, but I shall take the noble Lord’s comments back and, if we have anything further to say on it, I shall write to him.

On core funding, I simply add that this was the best settlement that local government has had for a long time. The council tax capping to which the noble Lord referred is something that his own Government introduced and kept in place. We have not changed that, so local authorities will be able to continue with the 5% increase. The funding settlement is far more generous than many that I had when I was the local government leader trying to do battle with a system that was gradually reducing my funding every single year. Many councils have had an increase this year and many have had a substantial increase this year. When I look online at the budget speeches of colleagues around the country—which I do, because I am a bit of a sad geek in that respect—it is absolutely amazing to see councils talking about what they are able to do now because of the increases in funding that they have received. I am very proud of that, and I am certainly not going to apologise for it.

This Government’s ambition is to end the two-tier system and establish single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform. Our vision is clear: for stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services and empower communities. This order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey to help to ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. We will continue to work with the leaders in Surrey to develop their proposal for a foundation authority but, for now, I hope that the Committee will welcome this order.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I apologise: I should have asked this earlier. It is just a point of clarity; I am not making a political barb here. We asked about the role of the commissioners. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us an answer now, but it would be very helpful, certainly for the people in Surrey and the councils involved, if we could have clarity on the role of the commissioners, when they will be extended and how their roles will fit into the shadow authorities. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer now, but that would be helpful to have.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry, I thought I had covered that when I spoke about the detail of the support being provided to Woking. The commissioners are still working there, and we will continue to work with Woking and the other authorities involved in west Surrey, as is necessary.

New Housing: Flood Risk

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We know that Flood Re has provided cover for 346,000 household policies and 650,000 properties have benefited since the scheme’s launch, so I agree with the noble Earl that it has been a very valuable scheme. We know that all homes built since 2009 are excluded from Flood Re, as that would be inconsistent with current policy. With the planning policy, we are trying to make it clear that inappropriate development in flood plains should be avoided and, where development is necessary in a flood risk area, it should be made flood resistant, resilient and safe for the lifetime of the development.

Build Back Better is the UK home insurance sector initiative, which I am sure the noble Earl is aware of, and is designed to help home owners recover from flooding in a smarter way. It enables eligible policyholders to access £10,000 to install flood measures during repairs over and above the usual cost. We are looking at supporting those who have been at risk of flooding and, through the National Planning Policy Framework, making sure that we absolutely reduce that risk to a minimum.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, flood risk management is a complex issue that requires co-operation and collaboration between developers, local authorities, insurers and home owners. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that institutional knowledge and specialist risk management expertise is not lost during local government reorganisation?

Renters’ Rights Act: Implementation

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Jamieson]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure landlords, tenants and local authorities are prepared for each phase of the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, including funding allocated; and what plans they have for communicating changes ahead of the tenancy reforms this spring.

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

My Lords, we have given the sector a clear timeline for reform in our implementation road map. Ahead of phase 1 of implementation in May, we have already published guidance for landlords and local councils, and launched our communications campaign using social and main- stream media and partners to raise awareness. We have also allocated £18.2 million in new burdens funding to local councils in 2025-26, alongside funding for the justice system and Shelter’s expert housing advice line.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I thank the Minister for her response. Unfortunately, landlords are voting with their feet, exiting the market in ever higher numbers: 93,000 in 2025 and a forecast 110,000 this year, according to the Black & White Bridging report. The English Private Landlord Survey reports that 31% of landlords are looking to reduce their portfolio and 16% to exit completely. Can the Minister explain how this helps those desperately looking for a home to rent?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We know that landlords need time ahead of the implementation to make sure they are compliant with the reforms, and that is why we have published a full package of landlord guidance on GOV.UK to support the first phase of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May this year, including a draft written statement of terms so landlords know what information must be included in new tenancy agreements.

We continue to work constructively with the landlord sector. Officials recently spoke to over 1,000 landlords and letting agents at a webinar organised by Rightmove and attended the National Residential Landlords Association conference to speak directly to landlords impacted by the reforms.

New Homes Target

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that as we go through this process of building more homes, we also create the jobs to go alongside that. We have been working very closely with the sector and particularly with the developer skills group to make sure that we invest in skills as we go along this path of building. It has been very supportive, to the extent of investing £140 million in skills alongside the skills funding that the Government have put in. It is very much committed to this. We welcome the Home Builders Federation statement in July 2024 looking to rapidly increase the pace at which homes are built, deliver the high-quality affordable homes that the country needs and provide the skilled jobs that we know we need to deliver that.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, only a little over 300,000 additional homes have been delivered in the first 18 months of this Government. Given their target of 1.5 million homes, they will have to deliver at the rate of 342,000 homes a year. Previously, in response to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, the Minister said that they would achieve this by speeding up existing planning permissions. Given that housing starts continue to run at well below the average rate under the previous Conservative Government, can the Minister say when this will happen?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It ill behoves the Government who caused the housing crisis to be pressing us on this. We have already taken very significant steps, which I have outlined, to move this forward. We updated the National Planning Policy Framework. It is early yet to see an impact from those changes. We expect to see the effects feeding through into a higher number of homes being granted permission later in the year. However, new figures show that already we are seeing some green shoots of recovery, with a 29% increase in housing starts compared with 2024. It will take time to turn the tide after decades of underinvestment and a failure to build the homes and infrastructure that we needed to keep up with demand. We expect housebuilding to ramp up, particularly in the later years of the Parliament, as our reforms take effect. We will continue on our mission to deliver those 1.5 million homes.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Jamieson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley for speaking. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in particular. I strongly support the stand part notices on Clause 59 and Schedule 27. The reason has been explained. This is a devolution Bill about community empowerment, but the Government are removing the right of local people to decide for themselves what system of governance they want.

We have this devolution Bill, but the Government decide the form of local governance and say that there will not be a committee system. Where are we now? We are in Parliament, operating as a Committee. I have spoken on this issue many times in recent years. The reason why I believe that we should encourage committee systems is that they decentralise power but, more importantly, they enable scrutiny to take place at the point of decision-making. All too often, scrutiny in local government takes place after the decision. We will debate this further on our eighth day in Committee but I think that this is a fundamental right. I just want to keep the right of a community to create the structure that it wants. That right lies in the Localism Act 2011.

I very much hope that we will come back to this issue on Report. However, there are rumours that we may not get a Report stage and may end up in wash-up prior to Prorogation, because there are not many weeks left. We have a further day in Committee on 5 March and we have to leave an interval to reach Report. Can the Minister tell us whether we are going to have a Report stage? Also, if we are going to have a Report stage, I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will bring this back, because that would give us the power to say to the Government, “You have to think again on this issue. Do not tell local people in all local authorities what model they are required to adopt”.

In the Explanatory Notes, there are explanations for why the Government are undertaking this, but, frankly, they are spurious. They claim that there is evidence, but I do not know what the evidence is. In the end, why do we not just trust local people to make decisions? Otherwise, 56 million people in England will continue to be run out of London and Whitehall.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to continue what seems to be an emerging consensus and a Sheffield love-in. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was the leader in Sheffield when I was at Sheffield University and I will always be grateful for the 10p bus rides that I was able to take.

As we have discussed, these amendments concern the committee system. Let us be frank: this is a devolution Bill. I reiterate yet again that this side of the Committee and these Benches believe in democracy and in devolution. If you believe in those two things, this is about allowing and empowering local communities to decide what is best for them.

I was leader of Central Bedfordshire and operated under the strong-leader model, which worked well for Central Bedfordshire. I am sure it will work well in many other places but, if local communities believe that the committee system is best for them, they should be given that opportunity. Does the Minister believe in devolution and local democracy and will she allow local communities to decide the governance model that best meets their needs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I turn first to my noble friend’s intention to oppose the clause and Schedule 27 standing part of the Bill.

This clause and the related schedule will bring further consistency to local authority governance arrangements across England. As your Lordships may know, the Government still have a strong preference for executive models of governance. We believe, and I believe because I have operated in both, that the leader-and-cabinet model, already operated by over 80% of councils, provides a clearer and more easily understood governance structure and can support more efficient decision-making.

To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, there are several individual examples that highlight the challenges of the committee system. When Cheshire East switched to the committee system in 2021, an LGA corporate peer challenge found that its structure was large and meeting-intensive, with six policy committees and nine sub-committees, involving 78 out of 82 councillors. Co-ordination across individual committees is a persistent challenge. The same peer challenge for Cheshire East flagged the siloed nature of the council, with poor joint working across departments, contributing towards challenges of service delivery and communication.

Several councils that have tried committees have later reverted to the leader-and-cabinet model, for example Brighton and Hove in 2024. This is wasteful of both time and resources. With collective decision-making spread across multiple committees, it is not always clear who is in charge. Councils that return to the leader-and-cabinet model, such as Newark and Sherwood District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, have judged it to be more transparent, agile and accountable.

At the same time, we recognise the genuinely held concerns of those councils that have adopted the committee system following a public referendum or a council resolution. That is important and I take seriously the words of noble Lords who have raised that. The Government’s amendments made in the other place to these provisions were intended to allow some councils that have recently adopted the committee system, following either a council resolution or a public referendum, to continue operating that governance model until the end of their moratorium period. At that point, the local authority will be required to undertake and publish a review of whether it should move to the leader-and-cabinet executive model or retain its committee system. The Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent governance model for local authorities across England and respecting local democratic mandates and voter expectations where councils are currently operating a committee system and are within their current moratorium periods. With these points in mind, I invite my noble friend to support these measures.

I turn to the government amendments in this group. As I have set out, the Government introduced an amendment in the other place to allow certain councils operating the committee system to continue to do so where they were within their statutory moratorium periods. The Government are now bringing forward additional amendments to clarify the circumstances in which a local authority’s committee system may be protected from the requirement to adopt the leader-and-cabinet executive model. This will mean that the protection period applies only where the council has previously adopted the committee system following either a council resolution or a public referendum and is within its statutory moratorium period at the point this provision is commenced.

The amendments clarify that the prior resolution to change governance must be made under Part 1A of the 2000 Act. This will ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England and respecting more recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations. It will also reduce disruption where councils are operating a committee system within their statutory moratorium period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, like many others, I had a leading position as a councillor during Covid. The Minister and I corresponded on many calls. Remote working worked well during Covid, but there were some famous failures. Some councillors fell asleep live on YouTube—not in my council, I hasten to add. Others went to the toilet, got undressed or got out of the shower. Children bumbled in. There was that famous meeting where a woman had no authority but managed to cut the other chap out; I cannot remember her name, but we all know the one. So, yes, it can work, and there are safeguards.

I completely disagree with proxy voting, so I have no truck with Amendment 219. However, I am broadly sympathetic with Amendments 218 and 220, which are trying to ask how we can participate remotely, although I find it difficult to support them as they are currently constructed.

This is complicated. There are different types of meeting, and each has different consequences. There is the full council meeting, in which everyone gets together. It is important that everyone gets together to cast their vote as a council rather than as a set of individuals sitting at home—in their underpants, let us say. There are executive meetings and cabinet meetings. They are really important, and people want to see them; there are rights of attendance, and people will want to lobby. There are scrutiny meetings, but that is not an executive function. Then there are policy-formation committees, which are not for decision-making but are part of scrutiny. So we have the distinction between what are and are not decision-making committees. Then there are quasi-judicial meetings, such as those on planning or licensing; in-person attendance is really important for those. None of this fine-grained texture is in the amendments but, if they are to progress, it should be.

Local government is becoming more complicated. There is certainly a need to travel more, particularly in the larger authorities such as North Yorkshire. The answer to that is not to have something quite as big as North Yorkshire, but we are where we are. There are going to be more combined meetings under these combined county authorities. There are also more trading companies involved in local authorities now. They are at arm’s length from the council—they may be owned by the council but they are not of the council—and we have to take them into consideration, too. There are significantly more partnerships, some of which are joint committees of more than one council. We would have to work out, if two councils came together and one had the freedom to do online meetings and the other did not, how that would mesh in joint committees, of which we are seeing a lot more. We have development corporations as well. There is a lot of public money there, so will they be meeting in private or in public?

We have to sort out some of the ground rules. It is not quite as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh said. I am interested in taking this forward, but it will need a lot more work before Report before any of it could really be considered a realistic proposal, rather than just a good idea for probing.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to this debate and wish to speak briefly on this group of amendments. They address fundamental questions about how local democracy is conducted, how local councillors discharge their duties and how we maintain the integrity of local decision-making. These amendments are well intentioned—we have certainly heard about the difficulties that there can be in arriving at meetings, particularly where significant distances are involved—but I fear that they do not sit easily with the principles of genuine devolution and open, accountable, transparent government where you can see where the decision is being made.

Amendment 218 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Amendment 220, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, would allow for remote meetings or remote participation in meetings. A cornerstone of our democratic life is the principle that significant decisions should be taken in person and in public, where elected representatives can be directly observed, challenged and held to account, and where the debate is in the room. During the pandemic, remote arrangements became an unavoidable necessity, yet many of us witnessed—my noble friend Lord Fuller alluded to some of the issues we saw—how public engagement was diminished, the debate became thinner and the essential character of our democratic exchanges was damaged.

I do not believe that we should return to arrangements that bring back that distance, both literally and figuratively and in terms of participation, between elected representatives and the people they serve. The default expectation of democratic office ought to remain that in decision-making councillors come together, face to face, to deliberate in the public view. Any move to the contrary, even in limited circumstances, would, I fear, be a slippery slope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, with my other hat on, as the Whip, I just want to say that the next group is pretty long. We may not finish it by 9.15 pm so we may end up having to split the group. We may get to the single amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I cannot guarantee that. I am in noble Lords’ hands, but we have to stop at 9.15 pm.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

We are definitely finishing the debate.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

We are definitely finishing at that time. If we can get through this big group, we will, I hope, be able to do the eighth group, but we must finish at 9.15 pm.