Home Ownership: First-time Buyers
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right. The Government recognise that some people who entered shared ownership have faced real challenges. We have introduced new expectations for landlords to improve the customer experience, which include giving greater consideration to long-term customer affordability, making sure that there is greater transparency and fairness on costs, ensuring that fees do not generate a profit and giving customers the ability to opt out of fees for optional services, which often was not pointed out. We are continuing to consider what more can be done to improve that experience for all our shared owners.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, despite a housing crisis, we are seeing housebuilding plummet as affordability collapses and first-time buyers are reluctant to extend themselves in a period of economic uncertainty. This is particularly the case in London, with an average house price of £661,000. The Minister talked about hidden costs; those houses attract a £23,000 stamp duty. Does she agree that we need to stimulate housebuilding and that removing the economically destructive stamp duty tax would be a good start?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There are exemptions from stamp duty for first-time buyers, so that is not the case for them. First-time buyers benefit from paying no stamp duty land tax up to £300,000 and are able to claim relief on purchases up to £500,000. The Government are working closely with the Mayor of London. I will meet the deputy mayor for housing this week to talk about what further steps we can take to help the building of homes in London. It is not true to say that no housebuilding is moving forward. We had an increase in growth in the first quarter of this year.
Jo Cox Civility Commission
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for introducing this debate and raising the importance of community, of respect, of getting involved, and of the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. I need to declare that I am still a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates. I thought this debate might be a bit of a downer but he really uplifted it, and I think we are all feeling much better for that. I think that is the right legacy for Jo Cox and others: for us to feel good, not bad. We should look up, not down, and recognise what a wonderful country we live in, and that the vast majority of people are good.
We need to cherish and protect that which makes our country great. We need to rely on our politicians to lead and develop our country. We want the best politicians. Politicians should not need to continually look over their shoulder for threats when they inevitably have to make what will be difficult decisions—because there will be difficult decisions for all politicians.
I particularly want to focus on councillors—I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, so noble Lords might not be surprised. Councillors are embedded in their community, and in many ways they face greater risks because they are well known. It does not matter whether your address is published; most people know where you live as a councillor because you are part of that community. The LGA survey in 2025 showed that 72% of councillors had faced abuse, 50% were subject to misinformation and 25% had received threats of violence.
We want the best councillors. Traditionally, many councillors were not particularly politically driven; they basically just wanted to help their community and do what was right. Maybe it was to try to get a leisure centre built, or maybe, like me, they were fed up with too many potholes. Whatever it was, it was not because they were saying, “I am definitely a strong Labour person”—or a strong Conservative person, or whatever it was. They just wanted to do good.
That was why, when I was chairman of the LGA, I launched the Debate Not Hate campaign—which, to be topical, is about playing the ball, not the player. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, said, we need to recognise that what we say matters. In the age of social media, comments made will inevitably be exaggerated. They will be misquoted and distorted and frequently will snowball.
One of the reasons I like door knocking is that I get the chance to talk to somebody for five or 10 minutes. I have pretty much never walked away from a door and had somebody say, “You’re a terrible person”. They may still disagree with me, but at least we had the opportunity to realise that we were coming from different angles. We could be wrong but we were not bad. That is really important when we have our debates. We should not imply that somebody is wrong because they are bad. They are wrong because we may have a different set of values or because we do not agree with their analysis, but it does not make them bad. To say so is a shortcut that causes huge problems.
The risk—or the reality, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, said—is that you get only the people who are thick-skinned, to which I add the highly motivated, standing. That is not good for our country or for our local communities. It is not enough to talk about community; we need to live it, be comfortable with our actions, respect each other and not give the opportunity for this foul abuse.
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Lord Jamieson ExcerptsWednesday 17th June 2026
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2–II Second marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jun 2026)
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I was going to say I was grateful to all noble Lords who had spoken in the debate, but I am certainly most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for doing so. She identifies a couple of critical issues: the need for more housing and the need for clarity and information. That is important.
It is important that we keep a sense of perspective here about right to buy. It does not mean that that home disappears, or that the family living in it disappear; they are still in that home, and in many cases they will remain in it for many years, irrespective of whether it is a social home or they actually acquire it. The issue is therefore not about the loss of physical dwellings but about the change in tenure and the availability of social housing for other tenants. That is precisely why the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the amendments that we have tabled address the serious discussion about replacement. We need reliable, current information and data.
Equally, if there is a case for one-for-one replacement which we believe, that should be examined openly and supported by evidence rather than assumptions. We have now had the opportunity to look at the impact assessment for this Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly raised the issue of how we can reduce housing lists by increasing supply. If you look at table 4, what is the impact of removing right to buy? After five years or so, when it settles down, it means that over 3,000 fewer houses every year are built. That is 3,000 fewer homes for families and 3,000 more families on the council waiting list every year. We need more homes, and right to buy is an opportunity to increase that.
Think what would happen if the Government were to focus on building more homes rather than stopping families having the opportunity to own their own home. As we seek a minimum of one-for-one replacement, we could be seeing over 5,000 extra homes every year. That is 5,000 more families given the opportunity for a social home and 5,000 fewer people every year on housing waiting lists.
The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill do not seek to prescribe a particular outcome; they seek to ensure that Parliament and the public have the information necessary to assess the effectiveness of the policy and make informed decisions about its future.
I was going to say that this has been a constructive debate—maybe I should say this has been a constructive discussion—but we all recognise the need to increase housing supply and the opportunities for home ownership. I hope the Minister will reflect on the arguments made, the case for greater transparency and the need for more homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak about the Social Housing Bill, may I just wish our team England—well, it is “our team England” for some of us—all success this evening, and I hope we will be finished in time for some of us to see some of it.
I thank everyone for the lively and constructive debate we had on this Bill on Monday; it is a pleasure to be back to continue discussing it. Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require the Secretary of State to reconsider our one-for-one replacement policy. Relatedly, Amendments 55 and 56, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, would require a report assessing the viability of this requirement. Amendment 53, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, would insert a clause requiring reports to the Secretary of State on sales and replacements. Separately, Amendment 58B from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would require a report to Parliament within a year on the impact of Clause 5 specifically.
We announced in our response to the consultation on right-to-buy reforms that we are removing the formal one-for-one right-to-buy replacement target. However, and I say this very specifically, this does not mean we are complacent about replacing homes sold. Far from it: we call on councils to go over and above replacing sold stock and to play a central role in the Government’s commitment to deliver a generational increase in social and affordable housebuilding. The one-for-one target was introduced in 2012, when the only social and affordable housing delivery that councils were asked to do was to replace homes sold under right to buy.
Our ambition far surpasses this now. We want to see more than one-for-one replacement and do not want a target that limits that ambition. As I set out my letter following Second Reading, this Bill is not the extent of our delivery ambition. Our ambition is to deliver 300,000 social and affordable homes over the course of the programme, and we are taking decisive action to reinvigorate council housebuilding, including supporting councils in our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. We also invested £17 million last year to boost council housebuilding skills, and we have permitted councils now to combine their right-to-buy receipts with grant funding.
The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill forecast that England was on course to lose 26,000 social homes between 2026 and 2036. However, through our package of right-to-buy reforms, including allowing councils to keep all the receipts from sales—something we have long campaigned for from local government—and reducing cash discounts, alongside the provisions in the Bill, we now expect a net gain of around 18,000 homes over the same period, instead of what would have been a loss.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
May I ask for some clarification from the Minister? Clearly, table 4 in the impact assessment shows that under the pre-November 2024 baseline, if we take the 2034-35 figures, 4,750 homes would be built from the right-to-buy receipts and, under the new baseline, 1,550 would be built. That is 3,200 fewer homes. The assumption that we are going to have more homes available for social tenants relies on the fact that those tenants who might have bought their home will leave that home anyway. If they stay there, we will have fewer homes for new social tenants.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think the figures stated relate to what happens once we have enacted the Bill. As I have said many times, the ambition to deliver more social homes is not just about the replacement of right-to-buy homes. Right-to-buy sales may go down, but we still anticipate that the measures being taken in the Bill will result in a net increase of 18,000 homes over the period; whereas, because the sales were going up, we would have lost 26,000 homes. With the social and affordable homes programme adding to the overall total and the net increase in homes that we are seeing through the right-to-buy programme, which is 18,000 as opposed to a 26,000 loss, we will see an increase in social housebuilding.
Lord Jamieson
“Local connection requirements(1) The Secretary of State must, using powers under section 166A(7) and 167(3) of the Housing Act 1996, require that local housing authorities ensure that reasonable preference in allocations policies takes account of local connection.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), local connection includes—(a) residence,(b) employment,(c) family association, or(d) service in His Majesty’s Armed Forces.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue guidance on the implementation of subsections (1) and (2).(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would strengthen local connection considerations in social housing allocations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84 and 113 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. All amendments in this group are united by a simple principle: social housing is a scarce and valuable resource. As we have heard in previous debates, demand exceeds supply in many parts of the country. It is therefore essential that allocation policies are fair, transparent and command public confidence. Data from the House of Lords Library shows that each new social rent home requires a grant of between £80,000 and £100,000 in order to be built. Those figures are for outside of London; I do not have the figures for London, but I suspect that they will be higher.
Amendment 68 seeks to strengthen the consideration given to local connections when allocating social housing. If we are to build homes, we need to bring the communities affected with us. As a councillor in Central Bedfordshire, I have frequently experienced local concern that housing is being built for Londoners, not locals. In many cases, that is not the case, but it is the concern. The Minister has related stories of the difficulties she faced from the locals when Stevenage was originated as a new town. Communities are more likely to support new housing development when they can see that local people who have lived in, worked in and contributed to the area are given appropriate consideration. Strong local connection policies can help maintain confidence in the system while ensuring that housing is directed to those with genuine ties to the community in the area.
Amendment 69 concerns eligibility for social housing among those who are not British citizens. Given the pressures that exist on housing waiting lists across the country, it is important that the Government are clear about who is eligible for social housing and that we ask whether reform is needed. Ultimately, this amendment is about the principles that underpin allocation of scarce public resources.
As of March 2023, there were approximately 1.33 million households on the local authority housing registers in England—the highest figures for a decade, and significantly higher than in recent years. Behind those statistics are families, pensioners, young people and vulnerable individuals, all waiting for access to secure and affordable accommodation. At the same time, 431,000 households in social housing had a lead tenant who was a non-UK national, representing around 10% of all social housing households. These figures inevitably raise legitimate questions about eligibility, prioritisation and fairness.
The purpose of this amendment is not to diminish the contribution that many non-citizens make to our country or to ignore the complexity of the individual circumstances. We are not saying that we should not support those who come to this country and contribute—but that does not mean that they should be entitled to potentially a lifetime council house at well below market rent. Indeed, that is why we want to have this debate—an honest and mature debate. When demand substantially exceeds supply, who should social housing be intended to serve? That reflects some of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s comments in the previous debate.
Many members of the public would reasonably expect that access to social housing should be closely linked to contribution, long-term commitment and belonging to this country. At the very least, Parliament and the public should have a clear understanding of who social housing is for. Public confidence in the social housing system depends greatly on the perception of fairness. I refer back to my comments that this requires a substantial upfront subsidy, which is particularly important at a time when waiting lists remain at historically high levels.
Amendment 74 similarly seeks greater clarity regarding the guidance on social housing eligibility in respect of certain foreign public officeholders and associated persons. This amendment arises in part from concerns highlighted by a recent high-profile case involving the First Lady of Sierra Leone. That case raised significant public concern and has rightly received widespread scrutiny. I appreciate that that has now been resolved, but it took 12 months from the public becoming aware. It is not about a single individual or a single country. Rather, where individuals hold senior public office overseas or are closely associated with those who do, is it not reasonable to ask whether existing eligibility rules are sufficiently clear and robust? We seek clarity from the Government on this. Are existing checks and information-sharing arrangements sufficient? Are local authorities equipped to identify circumstances in which an applicant’s position, assets or access to resources overseas may be relevant to eligibility decisions?
Amendment 81 would require regular reviews of income eligibility thresholds. It is important that eligibility criteria remain aligned with economic realities and reflect changes in incomes, housing costs and local circumstances. Thresholds that are not regularly reviewed risk becoming detached from the conditions they were designed to address.
Amendments 82 and 84 seek better information. One would require estimates of social housing demand arising from net migration. The other would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. Whatever views noble Lords may take on wider immigration policy, effective public policy depends on understanding demand. Local authorities cannot plan effectively unless they have a clear picture of the pressures affecting housing needs in their areas.
Amendment 113 would require housing register applications to be reviewed periodically to ensure that waiting lists remain accurate and up to date. Given the pressures on social housing supply, it is important that waiting lists reflect genuine and current need.
I was particularly interested in Amendments 93 and 94, concerning prison leavers and former offenders. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his long-standing work on prison reform and rehabilitation. The cost of reoffending both to society and to the public purse is enormous. Amendment 94 is a measured proposal that seeks to improve the sharing of information between prisons and local authorities, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward.
Together, these amendments seek to ensure that social housing policy is informed by accurate information, fairer eligibility criteria and a clear understanding of housing demand, seeking to get local community support. I beg to move.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 91 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is a modest amendment, asking simply that the Secretary of State conduct review of veterans’ access to social housing and report to Parliament within 12 months of this Act passing. It does not prescribe outcomes or impose new burdens on local authorities; it asks the Government to look and just tell us what they find. I recognise that much action has been taken here, but it is difficult for us to make reasonable judgments about what is working and what is not without us getting the data and being able to see how things are working out in practice.
I turn to the case for this amendment. Between 2018 and 2024, the number of homeless veteran households in England rose by nearly 25%, from 1,820 to 2,270, according to MHCLG’s homelessness data. The most recent figures, for 2024-25, record over 2,000 veteran households at risk of or experiencing homelessness, and those are only the ones who have approached a local authority for help. The ONS veterans survey suggests that the true number may be closer to 7,500 people, many of whom will never appear in any official count.
The Government have made some welcome changes in recent months, and I really acknowledge that. The December 2024 regulations removed the five-year sunset on the local connection exemption, ensuring that no veteran, regardless of how long ago they left service, can be turned away from a housing register simply for lacking local ties. Updated guidance now explicitly extends additional preference to veterans with service-related mental health conditions, including PTSD. Those are real improvements, and they deserve recognition, but guidance is not the same as accountability. Additional preference does not guarantee placement in the highest band and, in many authorities, even the highest bands involve long waits, because there is just not enough social housing stock. Shelter has noted that the rights veterans hold in practice depend heavily on individual local authority policy and can vary enormously from one area to the next.
There are particular concerns about veterans with service-related disabilities and complex needs. Around 16% of veteran households receiving new social lettings include someone injured or disabled as a result of their service. Specialist adapted accommodation is limited— I spoke about this at Second Reading. I feel particularly passionately about the need to improve the stock of adapted housing because my husband is disabled and we know how difficult it is to find any housing in the private sector or the social sector, which we have not benefited from. If there is simply not enough anywhere, it is difficult for anybody with any disability to do anything other than find themselves waiting for a long time on the social housing waiting list.
Operation Fortitude’s 900 units of veteran supported housing typically run at full capacity. A 2021 review found no new policy introductions for wounded, injured or sick veterans since 2016. The data picture is deeply inadequate. The Government do not publish national figures on how many veterans are on social housing waiting lists. MHCLG’s own lettings statistics acknowledge that between 18% and 44% of local authorities provide complete information on veterans on their registers—that is quite a variation. We cannot evaluate whether the system is working when we cannot see it clearly.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments is about access to and eligibility for social housing. I want to make two opening points. First, it is important that debate on these issues is conducted carefully and respectfully, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. Language that stigmatises or mischaracterises people living in or applying for social housing is simply not acceptable. Secondly, I remind noble Lords that there is an extensive review of social housing allocations statutory guidance currently being undertaken, which will consider many of the issues raised as part of this group.
I will address specifically Amendments 69, 74, 82 and 84, from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. In 2024-25, 89% of lead tenants in new social housing lettings were UK nationals, 4% were European nationals and 8% were from outside the European Economic Area—broadly the same as the previous year. Eligibility for social housing is tightly controlled. If a person’s visa prevents access to state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for social housing. Only eligible people can join waiting lists and receive a tenancy. Where foreign nationals are eligible, they will have their housing needs considered on the same basis as other eligible applicants, in accordance with the local authority’s housing allocation scheme.
On 20 November, the Government announced the biggest reforms to the legal migration system in 50 years. These reforms will build a fairer immigration system for British people, while doing the right thing by migrants who have built their lives here and contributed to our community, the economy and public services. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that I do not think we need to take lessons on asylum from the party opposite, which totally lost control of the system. That is still having an impact on housing and social housing now. We are addressing the system as a whole, which is the right approach, rather than stigmatising those who live in social housing. That is why we oppose Amendment 69. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, clearly outlined, the problem here is the lack of available social housing. We cannot blame other people for that —what we need to do is crack on and build some more.
Amendment 74, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance on eligibility for foreign public office holders and associated persons. That power and guidance are unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a power under Section 196 of the Housing Act 1996 to issue guidance on social housing allocations. Foreign public office holders and associated persons are already subject to local authority allocation rules. Authorities can apply qualification rules such as local connection and income tests to reflect local priorities. I remember the very same debate in my own authority around the five-year local connection test. There is therefore no need for this power. It would not be appropriate for me to comment here in the Chamber on the specific case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, but I draw Members’ attention to the statement from Southwark Council on that issue.
Amendments 82 and 84, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, would both require assessments that we do not think are necessary. Amendment 82 would require an assessment of social housing demand arising from net migration. Social housing demand depends on many factors and the effect of migration is not direct, so a yearly assessment would not be proportionate. Demand for social housing comes from a multitude of factors that are likely to be correlated, including economic conditions and a range of government policies. It is artificial and potentially misleading to seek to neatly and reliably separate the impact of net migration from other factors.
Amendment 84 would require an assessment of the impact of temporary asylum accommodation on local social housing demand. It is important to reiterate that asylum seekers are not eligible for social housing, so they will not be adding to demand for social housing. Where an individual is granted refugee status, they may subsequently approach a local authority for housing support. Whether they access social housing will depend on meeting local authority allocation policies, including any local connection or residency tests.
I want to highlight the progress made on sharing asylum pressures more fairly across the country. Since 2022, the Home Office has shifted from a model where asylum accommodation was concentrated in a small number of areas to one where all local authorities share responsibility, with each allocated a defined, evidence-based share of demand.
Much of the data sought in the amendment is already available. My department collects and publishes extensive information on social housing waiting lists and allocations, including data on new lettings and household characteristics. The Home Office regularly publishes a breakdown by local authority of accommodated asylum seekers, and my department publishes the homelessness duties owed to those as a result of leaving asylum support as part of statutory homelessness statistics. With this explanation, I kindly ask that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, does not press these amendments.
Amendment 68, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, seeks to require local housing authorities to take account of local connection when considering if an applicant for social housing should be awarded reasonable preference for an allocation of social housing. Local connection tests help local housing authorities manage social housing stock and are best placed to set the rules to ensure homes meet local housing pressures and that policies take account of the local context. We seem to have a bit of a theme of wanting to centralise these issues, but local authorities can set out in their allocation scheme that they will consider local connection as part of prioritisation. The vast majority, 89%, are choosing to consider it at an earlier stage as part of the qualification for the housing register, and we do not see the need to remove this choice from local housing authorities. I ask the noble Baroness not to press this amendment.
Amendment 113 would require local authorities to review applications on their housing register every three years. I of course support accurate and up-to-date housing registers and expect local authorities to review data regularly. However, it is for local authorities to determine how best to do that as part of how they manage their local social housing allocations schemes. This enables them to design schemes in a way that fits local priorities. A full review of the housing register might not always be the most efficient way to maintain an effective register. An applicant’s eligibility and qualification for social housing will be reassessed at the point of a home being allocated, so having ineligible households on a housing register does not mean that they will get social housing. With that, I kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Amendments 91 and 93, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on access to social housing for former members of the Armed Forces and former offenders respectively. This Government are committed to making sure that those who have served and their families have access to social housing. Current and former members of the Armed Forces community benefit from strong protections in the allocations framework, including receiving the highest preference where they have housing need. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for recognising the work that the Government have done on that. Where local connection or residency tests apply, legislation exempts the Armed Forces community, regardless of when they last served, ensuring that they are not disadvantaged. There is also statutory guidance in place on improving access to social housing for members of the Armed Forces.
The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, referred to access to social housing even for those in the highest bands. I understand her point. That is why our Government have placed such a high priority on the delivery of new social housing. It is the lack of housing that prevents people in high bands getting it, not whether they are a priority. I will make further remarks on her valid points on adapted housing when they come up in a later group.
With our review of statutory guidance on social housing allocations already under way, we do not need to conduct separate reviews for specific groups such as former members of the Armed Forces or former offenders, so I kindly ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Bakewell, not to press their amendments.
Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, seeks to ensure that local housing authorities get the information necessary to provide housing to prison leavers at risk of homelessness. This amendment focuses on an issue that my department and the Ministry of Justice are committed to tackling. I spoke to my noble friend Lord Timpson just yesterday about this, and my officials also met with the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, yesterday, as he said, to discuss his proposal in more detail. I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s work on this issue.
Supporting people into stable accommodation from their first night out of prison is critical to reducing homelessness and reoffending, as those without stable accommodation are more likely to reoffend, as we have heard. I support the intent of this amendment in reducing prison leaver homelessness. All prisons and probation services are already subject to the duty to refer under Section 213B of the Housing Act 1996. This requires them to refer anyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless to a local housing authority of the person’s choice. We continue to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that this process works as effectively as possible. My department also already collects data on the number of prison leavers provided with social housing by local housing authorities on release from prison and publishes this annually. Therefore, I ask that the noble Lord does not press his amendment, but my officials remain happy to have further conversations with him, if that would be helpful.
Finally, Amendment 81 seeks to create a new statutory requirement for the Government regularly to review income eligibility thresholds for social housing. As I have made clear, eligibility for social housing is considered through the allocations process. The Government do not set income eligibility thresholds; they are set by local authorities and private registered providers. This allows them to set thresholds that reflect the local context. I do not believe that it would be an appropriate use of resources for the Government to review every one of those independently set thresholds. The evidence is that it would cost more to implement than it would raise in revenue. A regular review would also penalise tenants for earning more and could lead to incentives to reduce working hours to avoid higher rent.
Income should not be equated with housing need or a lack of housing need. Some households may have additional needs or circumstances that mean that social housing remains the only viable or appropriate option for them. This can be the case, even where their income may be somewhat higher than others on the waiting list. Therefore, I ask that this amendment is not pressed.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I would like to go back to one point that the Minister raised on the review of housing waiting lists. She made the perfectly valid point that someone may have registered on the housing waiting list with a certain series of circumstances and that those will be tested at the allocation point. I accept that. However, the point we were trying to make is that the housing waiting list includes data that is used in making a variety of decisions on the prioritisation of what should be built and so on. Our view is that that data needs to be accurate. What can the Minister say on that point?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
In my experience, most local authorities do exactly what the noble Lord is suggesting: they very carefully take account of the information submitted by applicants for the waiting register when they apply for it. I think that those processes are already in place.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am sorry; I must be talking at cross-purposes. My point is that, given the length of time that people will be on the housing register, circumstances will change, and therefore what was put on one or two years ago may no longer be accurate. This is about having up-to-date, accurate data on the housing register, so that the council can make good decisions on policy, not on a particular allocation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Local authorities take a great deal of care when people apply for the social housing register, because they need to make sure that they meet their local provisions. That includes local connections, whether they have income eligibility and so on. They take great care in that respect. Most local authorities conduct regular reviews of the information they have—I will not say “all local authorities”, because I do not have the evidence in front of me to suggest that, but I think that nearly all of them do so.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. There have been a variety of views, so I will begin on the bits on which I think we generally agree.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for his eloquent contribution, as well as to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. They looked at how we can better support former offenders and those leaving prison. We support the intentions behind both of their amendments, and we believe that local housing authorities should at least be given more information about prison leavers in need of housing.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, for her strong case on behalf of veterans. We too agree that those who have served in His Majesty’s Armed Forces should be prioritised in social housing allocation processes. She is right to highlight the needs of those with potential disabilities arising from their time serving in uniform. When I first became a councillor, one of the first cases I dealt with was a military family that fell between the cracks of the regulation and the allocation. That was before the Armed Forces covenant, so I was very pleased that we were able to change council policy to have much greater flexibility. That family was then housed to great benefit.
I raise the issue of disabilities. I am very conscious that we do not have enough good-quality social housing for people with high and complex disability needs. One of the points that I made earlier in the debate about right to buy is that it provides the resources to look at new housing. I give the example of Central Bedfordshire: we were using right-to-buy receipts to develop specialist housing. The Minister knows that we were doing that for older people’s housing, but we also did it for disabilities. It was an absolute delight when we went to see families. I know one person who was constrained in a wheelchair and had very little movement. He said that that was the first time he had ever been able to open the front door of his own home, because he had one of those little infrared buzzers. It can be transformational, and we need to look at that.
We are also in agreement, which the previous amendments reflect, that there is a need to look at prioritisation, whether for offenders, military or other groups. That is why we have some of our amendments in the group. We can all say the solution is more social homes, but we need to recognise that, for the moment, demand massively outstrips supply, and therefore, difficult choices will be made. For every family or person who gets a social home, there will be many who will miss out—all with good and deserving cases. We suggest that there needs to be an open and honest discussion on prioritisation.
As my noble friend Lord Jackson asked—and I thank him for his eloquent support, both for my amendments and for the other amendments in the group—where else do non-citizens get priority? Why should UK citizens not be a higher priority? Why should UK military personnel not be a higher priority than a non-UK citizen? This is a debate that we need to have. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“Standards relating to maintenance of social housing(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to standards for maintenance of social housing, in line with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).(2) Guidance under subsection (1) must include provision relating to—(a) damp and mould,(b) electrical safety,(c) response times for repairs, and(d) tenant complaints procedures.(3) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. As we seek to increase housing supply, how do we ensure that social housing is not only available but safe, well maintained, accessible and capable of supporting thriving communities? The debate about housing often focuses on numbers, and understandably so, when we face such a shortfall. However, quality matters just as much as quantity. People deserve homes that are safe, healthy and fit for modern living. Equally, they deserve neighbourhoods that are well designed and capable of supporting long-term community cohesion. Amendment 76 concerns maintenance standards in social housing. The purpose of the amendment is to probe whether the existing guidance is sufficient and whether tenants can have confidence that standards will be maintained consistently across the sector.
The importance of this issue has been brought into sharp focus in recent years following the tragic case of Awaab Ishak. His death exposed serious failures in housing management and highlighted the consequences when basic maintenance problems were not addressed quickly and effectively. The introduction of Awaab’s law was an important step forward, but it remains essential that providers have clear guidance and that expectations are consistently understood across the sector. Safe housing is not simply about the condition of a property when it is first built; it is also about how the property is maintained over the many years of occupation. Good maintenance protects tenants, preserves housing stock, and reduces costs in the long term. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond regarding his amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100 and the other amendments in my name. We have the Equality Act 2010, and the public sector equality duty, but it is clear that in social housing, as in so many other sectors of our society, these pieces of legislation and regulation, though well constructed and well intended, are not in every circumstance delivering for disabled people in their local communities, not least when it comes to their social housing needs and aspirations.
In Amendment 100, I suggest that it would be a thoroughly positive thing to have an inclusion by design standard set out in the Bill. Though it appears duplicative at first instance because of the previous legislation I referred to, it would be additive, clarifying, enabling and empowering, not just for disabled people but—by nature of being inclusive by design—for all people. Through that clarity, it would enable and empower the local authority and the landlords, who are working at the sharp end when it comes to the current social housing situation across the country. An inclusion by design standard would be something to rally around and a gleaming light that could focus attention and deliver for disabled people and all people, far more than what the current legislation specific to equalities achieves.
In Amendment 102, I seek to bring that starkly to life by suggesting accessibility and adaptive housing standards. There are standards that exist in this area currently, but to have something that brings together accessibility and adaptive housing in a clear statutory statement in the Bill would be empowering for all people, not least those who are trying to do their best to deliver on this provision. The amendment suggests a register which would clearly set out the list of adaptive and accessible housing countrywide. I know that the Minister will consider this to be centralisation, but I believe it would be empowering to all local authorities. In a sense, it is something that any other organisation and business would do. It is nothing more than having an asset register—a clear, up-to-date and real-time set of registers of what the provision is. It will enable local authorities to have clarity as to what might be available just across the way in enabling authority. I know that local authorities and landlords work incredibly hard with adjacent authorities and neighbouring organisations, but to have this provision in real time available to them would be assistive in that process. Because of new technologies, it would not need to be expensive, bureaucratic or burdensome. In fact, with some neat coding, it could very much take care of itself once established.
Similarly, on my amendment on accessibility of digital, it is right that local authorities and landlords seek to use digital means wherever they can, but it is critical that all those digital means are accessible to all in our local communities, and indeed that alternative means are always available.
The amendments are not duplicative, because what is more significant than housing? It is about the safety and security of having somewhere you can go, and when you close your front door, you can say, “This is me. This is us”. That provision, safety and security should be available and accessible to everybody across our communities, not least to disabled people. It cannot be right that just by dint of being a disabled person, for lack of accessible and adaptable accommodation, you have a longer wait on a list than a non-disabled person. These amendments would be assistive in that process. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed on this group. This debate has focused on the fundamental point that housing policy is not simply about providing a roof over someone’s head; it is about ensuring that people live in homes that are safe, healthy, accessible and capable of supporting a good quality of life.
The debate has also highlighted broader questions about design, accessibility and the environments in which people live. As we consider these issues, it is important to continue to focus on the creation of mixed, sustainable communities. Good design should not be reserved for one tenure or another. The aim should be to create places where people want to live, regardless of whether they are tenants, shared owners or owner-occupiers. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response and will reflect on the points raised during the debate. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“Shared ownership strategy(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for increasing opportunities for shared ownership.(2) The strategy must include proposals relating to—(a) first-time buyers,(b) key workers,(c) housing association provision, and(d) staircasing arrangements.(3) The strategy must be laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 79, 105 and 106 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. These amendments concern shared ownership, which for many years has provided an important route into home ownership for people who may not otherwise have been able to purchase a home outright. In a housing market where affordability remains a significant challenge, in particular with the difficulty of saving for a deposit, shared ownership has the potential to play an increasing and important role in helping individuals and families to take their first step on the housing ladder.
While the principle of shared ownership may enjoy broad support, concerns are frequently raised about its operation in practice. It is not only that the system can be difficult to navigate, with inconsistency between providers; the risk and cost splits between the shared-equity owner and the landlord are skewed in favour of the landlord. The rent on the non-owned portion is frequently more costly than either an affordable rent or a mortgage. The costs of ownership—including management fees, lease fees and so forth—tend to fall on the equity owner and not on the landlord. Yet, when the house is sold, the landlord gets their full share of any uplift in value and equity.
In the sales process, the equity owner ends up paying 100% of the sale costs, yet they may receive only 25% or 35% of the sale proceeds. As we have seen, particularly with flats, there are many unexpected costs. Rightly, with regard to fire safety, we need to do things to improve our blocks of flats. But we are talking about affordable housing for people who do not have much money and cannot afford to pay a sudden lump of money.
Some landlords raise additional administrative charges. When we look at the legal response times for landlords to the equity owner, particularly when they are looking to buy and sell, we need to recognise that these people are often in chains and that the response rate can be very important in order to secure a sale.
Right now, many people who are aiming for 100% ownership through staircasing face too many obstacles. For example, in designated protected areas you may be able to buy only up to 80%. We have to start shifting the balance. We need to be on the side of people who want a hand up, not a handout: people who want to mark their places on the housing ladder in their communities, for the security of their future and that of their family. We need to change the balance so that the shared equity owner gets a fairer deal.
Amendment 79 would require the publication of a strategy for expanding shared ownership. The purpose of this amendment is to understand the Government’s ambition in this area. Do Ministers see shared ownership as a central part of the housing offer in the years ahead? If so, what steps are being taken to increase its availability and attractiveness?
Amendment 105 seeks a review of the operation of shared ownership schemes and the barriers faced by shared owners, some of which I outlined earlier. We know that many people are attracted to shared ownership because it offers a more affordable route into home ownership. However, there are genuine concerns about service charges, maintenance responsibilities, staircasing and the practical experience of ownership, particularly with flats. Before expanding the model further, it is important that we understand where it is working well and where improvements may be needed.
Amendment 106 proposes the publication of a standardised model or template shared ownership agreement. One of the recurring criticisms of shared ownership is the variation in terms and conditions between schemes and providers and the differences in legal documentation. Greater consistency could help prospective purchasers understand their rights and responsibilities more clearly, improve transparency and strengthen confidence in the model.
These are probing amendments, intended to stimulate discussion about how shared ownership can be improved, simplified and expanded. If we are serious about widening access to home ownership, we should ensure that one of the principal affordable home ownership products is operating as effectively as possible. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I intervene to indicate a preference for Amendment 105, which calls for a review of shared ownership, rather than Amendment 79, which calls for a strategy for increasing shared ownership. This is because there are features of shared ownership that need addressing before we increase the opportunities.
The Minister will recall the problems facing shared owners in flats with safety issues post-Grenfell. I am grateful to her for agreeing to amend the Renters’ Rights Act to reflect that. But that indicated how the law on conventional tenures such as owner occupation, leasehold or tenancy finds it difficult to accommodate the special nature of shared ownership, which is in fact a combination of all three.
I welcome the recent changes to the scheme, particularly the 10-year guarantee against certain costs. But the review proposed in Amendment 105 should take as its starting point recent critical reports from the National Audit Office, the HCLG Select Committee report on the affordability of home ownership, and the findings of the Housing Ombudsman on shared ownership.
The NAO found that shared ownership helps many people buy a home who otherwise could not. However, it said the scheme is complex; many buyers do not fully understand its long-term costs and risks; affordability pressures can hinder progression to full ownership, and government lacks the data needed to judge whether the scheme is delivering good outcomes for consumers. While recent reforms have improved transparency and protection, the NAO concluded that important gaps in understanding and oversight remain.
The HCLG report was more critical. The committee found that legal and valuation fees made staircasing expensive. The buyers have to pay all those costs, which can run into thousands of pounds, and do so each time they staircase. It found that rising house prices can make additional shares unaffordable and many shared owners never reach full ownership. It questioned whether the scheme is genuinely delivering the aspiration for full home ownership for many participants.
Then we have the ombudsman. Complaints to the Housing Ombudsman regarding shared ownership properties have surged by nearly 400%, jumping from 324 cases in 2020 to 1,564 complaints more recently. That sharp rise reflects growing resident frustration with hidden costs, building defects and the difficulties of staircasing or selling.
The ombudsman highlighted several reasons for this escalation. Many residents face staggering increase in service charges and rent hikes, which can feel disproportionate. Landlords frequently fail to chase developers or effectively restore defects such as cladding or fire safety issues after they are raised. On the sales process, he found incorrect charges at the point of moving in, miscommunication regarding staircasing—buying larger shares of the property—and general delays from solicitors.
The ombudsman summed up the problems by saying that there is a “mismatch” between the expectation and understanding of the shared owner and the landlord. He concluded that the Government should address the
“fundamental inequities in the way in which shared ownership is designed”—
a point made by my noble friend Lord Jamieson.
Bringing all that together may explain why there is such a low satisfaction rate with shared ownership, and the largest providers have the lowest satisfaction rate—frequently below 30%. Any review should liaise closely with the Shared Ownership Council, Shared Ownership Resources, which has produced several documents indicating how the scheme might be improved and has first-hand evidence of existing pinch points. I very much hope that the Government will take this opportunity to review the scheme, put this form of tenure on a more secure foundation and rebalance the responsibilities as between the talent and the landlord.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As ever, I am in awe of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s vast knowledge and the amount of work that he has done on this. I also appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who has also raised this issue many times. I think there is universal acceptance on this side of the Committee that something needs to be done. It is a little bit more fundamental than looking at the “customer experience”, which, if I may say so, feels like a glib marketing throwaway, although I know the Minister does not mean it as that.
The purpose of these amendments has been to explore whether the current arrangements are delivering. Quite clearly, we have the National Audit Office and so forth saying that they are not delivering. I do not think that we can be satisfied with, “We are looking at it”; I think this needs a fundamental review. The Minister said that it is a widely understood scheme. I think conceptually it is widely understood, but I do not think that the consequences of being a shared owner, particularly of a flat, are widely understood. The potential financial ramifications, where the risk lies and the risk-sharing between the equity owner and the landlord are not appreciated. I think many of the complaints that we have seen out of this are because people did not understand what they were letting themselves in for, particularly for flats. I press the Minister to think again between now and Report and to look at how we can formally come up with a thorough review that looks at all aspects of this.
I would be interested to understand a bit more about what the Minister said about model clauses. Some model clauses and a thorough template are quite different. I would like to take up the Minister’s offer of discussions on this. This is an area where we need to make significant improvements because it is a real opportunity, when done right, to get people on the housing ladder, particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, in more expensive areas, who otherwise may not have that opportunity, but that is going to work only if we have a scheme that works. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the consequential power to amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same session as, this Act by regulations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to this final group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Clause 17(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to
“amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.
Amendment 118 would remove this power.
Amendment 119 would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for any regulations made under Clause 17. This would give Parliament stronger oversight of secondary legislation.
The theme of both amendments is to give Parliament stronger oversight of the Secretary of State’s powers. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why these powers were included in the first place and how the Government intend to use them in the future if this Bill is passed as currently drafted. The House deserves to know to properly consider these provisions, so I look forward to an answer from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for the amendments on powers in Clause 17. I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded:
“There is nothing in this Bill which we would wish to draw to the attention of the House”.
That conclusion gives important context for these amendments.
On Amendment 118, this is a standard consequential power that is found in many Bills and is limited to making a provision that is consequential on the Act. It cannot be used to introduce new policy; its purpose is to ensure that the legislation operates coherently once enacted, including by making any necessary technical changes to existing legislation. The Bill already provides an important safeguard where regulations under Clause 17 amend or repeal primary legislation. They are subject to the affirmative procedure, so both Houses must actively approve them. Removing the power entirely could leave technical inconsistencies or gaps on the statute book and make implementation less effective. It would mean that even minor consequential amendments to primary legislation would require further primary legislation. For those reasons, we consider the power necessary, proportionate and appropriately safeguarded.
On Amendment 119, the Bill already ensures enhanced scrutiny where regulations amend primary legislation. Applying the affirmative procedure to all consequential regulations would be disproportionate. Additionally, the power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the Act, and it is intended to be used only to ensure the effective implementation of the Act and to maintain a coherent legislative framework. I believe that the existing approach strikes the right balance. I hope the points I have made have provided some comfort to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I ask them to withdraw their amendment—and come on, England!
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply and her brevity, such that we can go and say, “Come on, England”. We still have concern about giving the Secretary of State powers without, in our view, proper parliamentary scrutiny, so we will continue to scrutinise the Bill in relation to secondary legislation and making provision for the affirmative parliamentary procedure. This is to protect the balance of power and to ensure that noble Lords continue to have oversight of changes made after this Bill becomes law.
We will review Hansard, and I thank the Minister again for her answers throughout Committee. We have had an insightful and worthwhile debate about this Bill’s provisions, and I look forward to working together with noble Lords ahead of Report.
As we close Committee, I would like to reflect on our key concerns. Our focus should be on building more homes, not restricting opportunity. We believe that right to buy not only provides an opportunity for families to own their homes but provides the resources to build more homes. This Bill not only denies the opportunity for families to move on in life but risks tens of thousands more families languishing on council housing waiting lists. We have also sought amendments to make housing allocations fairer and more transparent, to address issues with shared ownership, and to ensure better performance of registered providers. I beg to leave to withdraw our amendment.
Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, before I speak—although I am not sure it is a conflict in this issue— I need to declare that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank noble Lords for speaking in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who I think at the end of her speech said she is in favour of the single transferrable minute from one speaker to the next to allow her to speak longer. I thank my noble friends Lord Hayward, who raised the very important question of why now—I will come to that later—and Lord Jackson, who gave an excellent exposition of the shortcomings of the transferable vote or supplementary vote system
This is, in essence, a reversal. Within a relatively short period of time, we have moved from supplementary vote to first past the post, and now back to supplementary votes for mayoral elections. Whatever view one takes of the respective systems, that degree of oscillation is not a strength of constitutional design. I ask the very simple question: what problem is this change actually seeking to solve? The Government’s answer appears to be the claim that the supplementary vote system produces a mayor with broader support and therefore greater legitimacy. It is also said to allow voters to express preferences more fully and to ensure that votes are not wasted—although, as my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, in the previous London mayoral election there seemed to be an awful lot of wasted supplementary votes.
These arguments are familiar; they have been advanced in favour of preferential systems for many years. But repetition is not justification. The reality is that this draft does not demonstrate a failure in the existing arrangements of first past the post; nor does it set out evidence that voter confidence in mayoral elections has been undermined by the current system. Instead, it simply asserts that the alternative system is preferable. That is not sufficient when what is at issue are the rules by which democratic office is secured. First past the post has one defining virtue, and that is clarity. The candidate with the most votes wins. There is no second count, no transfer of preferences, and no recalculation. The result is immediate and intelligible. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, the public have previously demonstrated that they have a preference for the first past the post system.
That matters more than Members may realise, because the electoral system does not exist just in theory. It exists in the mind of the voter at the ballot box. If the voter does not really understand how their vote translates into outcome, we risk something important being lost. The supplementary vote system is not incomprehensible, but it is more complex. It does introduce a second stage of allocation, where preferences are redistributed. That may be administratively manageable, but it is not straightforward and it is not intuitive. We must remember that confidence in our elections is essential.
The Government also argue that the system produces a more legitimate mandate, because it takes account of second preferences. That is a fundamentally different conception of legitimacy, and it is not a neutral change. Under first past the post, legitimacy comes from a clear view expressed at the ballot box. Under supplementary vote, it comes from aggregated preferences after elimination and redistribution. Those are different constitutional logics. First past the post is well understood: it is tried, tested and clear. The question for this House is which is more appropriate for mayoral elections in England today. We are not persuaded that the Government have made a strong enough case that change is required.
There is also the wider concern of uncertainty caused by frequent changes. That cannot be ignored. Electoral arrangements should not shift back and forth with such frequency. Voters, candidates and administrators require stability. They need to know that the rules they are voting under today will be same at the next election. At present, that confidence is weakened by repeated changes.
I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could address a straightforward point. What is the Government’s principle here? Is it that electoral systems should be treated as settled constitutional arrangements unless there is clear and compelling evidence of failure, or is it that they may be altered whenever the Government take a different view? Those are very different approaches.
There is also the question of practice. The instrument requires changes to ballot papers, guidance to returning officers, counting procedures, voter information, and administrative systems across combined authorities. All of that is manageable, but it is not without its cost, its friction, and its implications for time. As my noble friend Loyd Hayward has raised, I also ask the question: why now? Why the urgency? Putting this in place will take some time for electoral returning officers, yet there is a risk we shall very shortly have a mayoral by-election. Would it not be better to delay to ensure a smoother implementation and also to include those other potential future changes? My noble friend asked: why now? I also ask: why now?
What assessment has been made of the costs to local authorities of implementing this change? What additional burdens will fall on electoral administrators? What steps will be taken to ensure consistency of understanding across different areas in the run-up to elections? More importantly, what assessment has been made of voter understanding? It is often assumed in this debate that voters are closely engaged with the mechanics of electoral systems, but my personal experience is that they are not. In fact, sometimes they are not that closely engaged in the detailed minutiae of politics, so I think that is a stretch assumption. What matters to voters is that the process is clear at the point of voting and that the outcome is trusted. Trust depends on simplicity and familiarity; both are weakened when this system changes repeatedly.
None of this requires us to resolve, once and for all, the philosophical debate between electoral systems. Reasonable people will differ on that question. But what the House is being asked to approve is not an abstract principle; it is a concrete change to the machinery of elections, justified on the basis of asserted improvements in legitimacy. We on this side of the House are not persuaded that the case has been made. We are not convinced that the benefits outweigh the cost to clarity, stability and confidence. We are concerned about the wider pattern of repeated alterations to electoral arrangements. We are also concerned about “why now?”
For those reasons, while I look forward to the Minister’s response, I must indicate that we remain unconvinced by the necessity or wisdom of this statutory instrument.
New Towns: Laying the Foundations (Built Environment Committee Report)
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I must first declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, which is the location of two of the new towns: Tempsford and a large chunk of the extension to Milton Keynes. Following the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I must also declare it is the location of the Forest of Marston Vale. I thank my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the committee for an excellent—and very much a foundation—report. I am aware that some of the comments made today will probably be covered in future reports.
I have some experience of new towns, not only Milton Keynes but Washington, where my father was from. When I first used to visit it as a child to see my grandmother, it was a small pit village. Now that village and several of the other small pit villages are transformed into a new town of 70,000 people, which I saw grow up through my childhood. The Government are proposing several new towns; I do not intend to comment on the ones in central Bedfordshire, although I would describe many as urban extensions rather than new towns, but I want to reflect on the principles of good urban planning. As the report makes clear, we need a compelling vision. We need to define a clear purpose and we need infrastructure first—not just roads, but utilities and soft water—and that means getting a whole group of different entities to work together.
That is very important, but I want to raise a couple of things that are also important. First, new towns should have a heart, a soul and a purpose. In our ancient cities, you can often think of that as a cathedral, so what will be the centre of a new town? What will give it its purpose? A town centre that works is not just about shopping; it is about community and where people come together. That gives it its identity. Secondly, the new towns should not just be urban commuter dormitories. They need to be living places where people can sleep, but where they also have the opportunity for work and for leisure—I recognise that there will still be commuting.
These days, we talk often about these wonderful towns. Milton Keynes is on my doorstep, but we are not going to be able to build new towns with that low a density in the south-east because there physically is not the space. We need to think about the density of new towns. That means a different sort of new town, not one based on road and car, but based much more on public transport, walking and cycling. That requires much higher densities. When I go to Europe, I see towns that are successful because the coffee shop has 12 apartments above it and the shop has apartments above it. People do not need to get into the car to go to the town centre. I have a curious question that I keep asking people: why is it not economic to build underground car parks in town centres in the UK whereas it seems to work pretty much everywhere else in Europe?
The Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned Cambourne, where I did a fair amount of door knocking in the recent elections. It is a wonderful housing estate, but I would not class it as a town. It did not have a proper town centre; it is something that evolved—I hope the noble Lord will forgive me on that. We need to, and can do, better.
Several noble Lords mentioned design. I raise the fact that our population is changing. When we designed new towns in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, it was for a much younger, much more family-orientated population. We have shifted. We have a much older population, and we will need to deal with many more singles and couples, not large families, and that is a different sort of town.
A number of noble Lords mentioned funding. If we are going to deliver infrastructure up front, we need to do that, but it is not just about cash flow. Realising the land value will not be as simple as it used to be in the past because many of these areas already have embedded value that we need to think about.
We talked about development corporations in the report, and I am glad that a number of noble Lords raised whether we can have mayoral or council-led development corporations, because if it is just in one area, that is a potential other avenue that we should look at.
A number of noble Lords raised leadership and speed. Clearly, many of us fear that this will spend more time in the planning than in getting bricks on the ground. If we are going to do this, we need real leadership and we need to get on with it. Again, I refer to Central Bedfordshire: Wixams station is going to be delivered 20 years after it was originally envisaged. That is not good enough for these new towns.
Finally, we need to consider the wider area. New towns can have a major impact on the other settlements nearby and could denude them, their town centres and so forth. We need to reflect on that as well. With that, I welcome my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley to the Front Bench.
Affordable Housing: Young People
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The allocation of funding for the DWP is a bit out of my housing remit, but I know that my noble friend who just answered the first Oral Question will have that in the forefront of her mind. As we deal with the situation around vulnerable young people, adequate housing is an absolutely fundamental building block of making sure that we set young people off on the right road from the very start. We will be working with colleagues in the DWP to make sure that we tackle the issues that prove to be barriers to young people entering housing.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, where proceeds of right to buy are used to build a new social home, the council housing waiting list reduces and a family has the opportunity to have their own affordable social home. Does the Minister agree that the Government should support and encourage strategies that provide more homes and reduce council housing waiting lists?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It was right-to-buy policies over the last 14 years which diminished the stock of social housing. So, while I agree with the noble Lord, I do not think that the right solution was brought forward. The Social Housing Bill that is currently before the House will change the right-to-buy scheme so that we enable more of the funding for right to buy to go back into the properties. We have now allocated 100%, so that local authorities can have 100% of the funding, and we will reform the whole right-to-buy scheme to deliver a fairer, better-value and more sustainable scheme. We want a scheme that will help long-standing tenants to buy their own homes, but we also need to protect much-need social housing stock and ensure that more homes are built than lost. That is what we are doing with the Bill. We will make sure that when a local authority builds a new house, it is exempted from right to buy for 35 years, so that councils have the confidence to invest for the future.
The Building Safety Regulator: Building a Better Regulator (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. It is a delight to follow so many excellent speakers, such as not only the noble Lord, Lord Roe, but the noble Lord, Lord John, given his experience of Southwark. I also give my thanks to the committee and to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for their excellent work and this very helpful and useful report before us.
This is a subject of real importance; it goes to the heart of two of the most pressing challenges that we face: ensuring that buildings are safe for those who live in them and ensuring that we can actually build the buildings that we need for our communities and people. There was a very interesting comment from the noble Lord, Lord Roe, that one of his big concerns is not just the safety of buildings but having safe buildings available for fire staff in London.
The establishment of the Building Safety Regulator was one of the most significant reforms introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022, by the previous Conservative Government, in response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. That Act was necessary and it was a serious attempt to restore confidence in the system of building control to strengthen accountability across the construction sector and to ensure that the failures that led to Grenfell could never be repeated.
We should be clear about why reform was needed: the Grenfell Tower fire, now almost nine years ago, led to the loss of 72 lives. Beneath that was the exposure of profound, long-standing failures in regulation, oversight and professional competence, as others have mentioned. That subsequent inquiry identified that the regulatory system had not kept pace with risk, a culture in parts of the industry where fire safety was not given sufficient weight and deeply concerning misconduct by some manufacturers of construction products.
In that context, the direction of travel set by the Building Safety Act was right: stronger regulation of higher-risk buildings, clearer responsibilities and a more robust system of oversight were all necessary reforms. However, as the committee’s report makes clear, the effectiveness of the system now depends on its operation in practice. It is one thing to design a regulatory framework; it is an entirely different thing to make sure that it operates well in practice. As the committee suggests, in its early operation, the Building Safety Regulator faced a number of challenges in its performance. I am delighted to hear in the update from the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, that its performance is improving substantially and that a number of the recommendations that are in the report are, in effect, being taken forward and acted upon, but there is more to do. I will concentrate on some of that, but I recognise that the regulator is part of the way along that journey.
Importantly, there have been delays in decision-making, uncertainty among applicants about what information is required at different stages, inconsistent communication, and a shortage of suitably qualified inspectors and fire safety professionals. Building safety is a shared responsibility: a regulator cannot succeed without a competent and responsive industry and, equally, the industry cannot succeed without a regulator that is clear, proportionate and efficient in its decision-making. I am pleased that other noble Lords have mentioned the importance of culture and of working with the industry and not being entirely separate.
As leader of Central Bedfordshire, I saw directly the challenges of delivering housing, regeneration and infrastructure within an increasingly complex regulatory environment. Local authorities sit at the intersection of these systems. We work with the developers, housing associations, utilities and regulators. What matters most in practice is not simply the existence of regulation but that it is clear, predictable and capable of being navigated without unnecessary delay. Where that clarity exists, delivery can proceed at pace. Where it does not, even well-intentioned policy can become a barrier to progress.
If we are to build the homes this country needs, we cannot look at building safety regulation in isolation. We must consider how it interacts with practical realities. How can we ensure those high standards ensure the use of safe materials but deliver decisions in a timely and predictable way? I do not think many noble Lords mentioned risk in terms of development. If you ask developers, the things that they are interested in are speed, certainty of decision-making and risk. This is a particular issue in places such as London, where you have huge upfront costs—buying the land, the development process and so forth. If you are building a large block of flats, you cannot sell them until you have completed the whole building. For those of us in rural areas, if you have 10 acres and are building detached houses, you can build them a house at a time and your upfront costs are so much less. Ensuring that you have a safe process is absolutely the first thing, but how can we also give people certainty that they will get through the process and know what the requirements are? That is how we will be able to get more buildings done.
The figures in the report illustrate the scale of the issues. The target is 12 weeks. In May this year, it was 35 weeks. I am really impressed that it is now 22 weeks, which is an improvement. We acknowledge that, but there is more progress to be done in the process. Delays inevitably have consequences, not just for new buildings but in existing buildings where remediation needs to happen. It means leaseholders remain in buildings with unresolved safety issues for longer than they need to. Remediation schemes are extended. Development pipelines are slowed and councils, particularly those engaged in regeneration, face uncertainty that can affect viability, funding and sequencing.
The committee is also right to highlight skills. It seems that everything in the development world revolves around a shortage of skills—whether of planners, plasterers, brickies or electricians. This is a critical area of safety, and I am really pleased that the Building Safety Regulator has been able to get more people with the skills they need. The one question I will ask is about an experience we have had with planners. When there is a downturn for developers—clearly, they are not bringing forward as many projects as they have in the past; their demand has gone down—we find that there are more people available on the regulator and planning side. I would like an assurance from the Minister that we recognise the need for a skills pipeline but are not overoptimistic, as we could be in a situation where, because of a slowdown in the number of developers bringing forward projects, the demand on their side is reduced and availability for the regulator is increased. I think that is something we need to look at.
One particularly important recommendation that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, brought forward was around the well-judged balance in determining what needs to be approved and when. That is very important for looking at category A and category B and the timing. Getting everything done up front is great, but when you are dealing with something with very high costs involved, if you are able in a safe way—as the committee suggests—to do it over a period of time and bring forward things at the appropriate time rather than up front, that has significant benefits. Equally, as we have been saying, with category A and category B works, it is about ensuring that you have the right specialist expertise operating on the most demanding aspects and the appropriate levels at some of the other maybe less demanding categories, such as category B.
We have talked about clarity of communication. I would also mention—I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Roe, raised this—that building safety is not a static discipline. As the noble Lords, Lord Roe and Lord Best, said, we need to ensure that there are safe materials and that they are tested suitably. That is not necessarily within the remit of the Building Safety Regulator at the moment but, as we get a better understanding of what safe materials and safe design are and how fire operates in a building, with that greater knowledge and experience, the Building Safety Regulator should look at how regulation can evolve to ensure that we enhance building safety and have a responsive regulator. I am very keen that those lessons are brought forward and that we can evolve our approach to regulation to ensure that we improve our safety.
In conclusion, we are dealing with two parallel national priorities: the remediation of unsafe buildings in the wake of Grenfell and the need to increase housing supply across the country and to ensure that buildings are safe. These priorities should not be in conflict and they do not need to be. A system that restores confidence in building safety will support investment and delivery, but a system that is slow and unpredictable risks undermining both. That is why the report is so important. It does not question the principle of strong regulation or seek to dilute the lessons of Grenfell; rather, it focuses on how we can ensure that the system introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022 works as effectively as Parliament intended and as is needed. I hope the Government will give the committee’s recommendations careful consideration. They are practical, measured and focused on improving outcomes, rather than on the process for its own sake. I commend the report to the Committee.
Local Councillors: Recruitment, Retention and Well-being
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. This is an issue that I have spoken about many times with many people in this Room, particularly at the LGA. The terrible thing is that I cannot say it has got any better; it has actually got worse. I will not repeat all the terrible things that people have already mentioned, because I think we have all faced them. The one that has not been mentioned is the abuse of family members, particularly children. It is not just abuse of the councillor themselves; it goes beyond that. This is entirely and totally unacceptable.
When I first became a councillor—not 53 years ago but in 2009—most councillors were just good local people who wanted to help serve their communities. They wanted to get the bins emptied, fix the potholes, maybe build a new leisure centre and improve their town centre. They were not particularly political or politically motivated. They were motivated by their locale. I think we can all agree that most of those things are the sorts of things we should be doing. They are not very political issues; they are just desirable.
What has changed is that the whole firmament has become much more political with the advent of social media. It is a snowball effect. It is an echo chamber where anonymous or pseudonymous comment can spiral out of control. We are seeing national and even international issues being brought into local politics. This should not happen. The world has changed. Twenty-odd years ago, someone had to write a vitriolic letter. No one else would see it. You would get slightly upset, and you would throw it in the bin. Now, it is on social media, it is viral and it goes everywhere. A well-meaning councillor who is just trying to do the right thing will often, because of spurious or false information, be subject to huge abuse, which then spirals into the real world with physical threats, firebombing of cars and so forth. It is just not right.
Why would you become a councillor? You need real strength of character and motivation, and people are going off to do something else—very meritorious stuff. We need good councillors and we need to keep good councillors, so we need to protect them. The LGA did a lot of good work and I think the previous Government moved quite a long way, but it is not enough. My key question today for the Government is: what will we do to go further? What will we do to make it safe to be a councillor so that it becomes an attractive job where you feel safe, can serve your community and do those things—fixing the town centre, getting a new school built or whatever—without feeling that you and your family will be intimidated?
Social Housing Bill [HL]
Lord Jamieson ExcerptsMonday 1st June 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. There seems to be a fair degree of consensus that we have a housing crisis and that something needs to be done about it, though we may differ on what the solutions are. In particular, we welcomed those speeches focused on protecting vulnerable tenants and strengthening safeguards of victims of domestic abuse. Those protections matter and we will continue to engage constructively as this Bill progresses to ensure that they are as robust and as effective as possible. But, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and other noble Lords, it is not just about bricks and mortar; it is also about the need for social support.
However, having listened carefully to the debate, we remain concerned that this Bill does not adequately address the fundamental causes of pressures facing social housing. The central challenge is not difficult to identify—we have a housing crisis because this country has not built enough homes that people can afford. We have not built enough homes for ownership, private rent or social housing to meet demand.
Yet instead of focusing relentlessly on increasing supply, this Bill concentrates largely on restricting existing routes into home ownership and expanding ministerial powers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, just raised, the Bill is not about building one extra home. That is why we believe it risks treating some of the symptoms rather than the fundamental cause. The answer to a housing shortage is straightforward: build more homes that people can afford. That requires political will, difficult decisions and a willingness to support development where it is needed.
As an example, my own authority, Central Bedfordshire, has delivered more than 1,000 homes in the last six months alone. The noble Lord, Lord John, raised the increasing costs of housing in London—London has registered fewer than 1,000 homes in the first quarter of this year across the entire capital. That is a buildout rate around a 20th of that of Central Bedfordshire. Is it any surprise that housing is so expensive in London? Central Bedfordshire is not unique. I can name a list of neighbouring authorities, such as Milton Keynes, Bedford, Northamptonshire and South Cambridgeshire, which have all had good buildout rates, and there are many others across the country, though I am not quite as familiar with them.
Too often, we see Labour councils resisting development locally while demanding more powers and more funding nationally. When areas with the greatest housing demand fail to build enough homes, those pressures do not disappear; they are simply transferred to neighbouring authorities and communities which are forced to build, often on green fields. That is not a sustainable approach to solving a national housing crisis.
Much of this Bill is centred on weakening the right-to-buy scheme. We believe that that is a mistake. The right to buy was one of the most significant social mobility policies of recent decades, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Bailey of Paddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. It gave millions of people, many from working class backgrounds, the opportunity to own a home for the first time, build security for their families and establish a greater stake in their communities. My noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Eaton raised the research from the London School of Economics, which noted how right to buy enabled an increase in human capital.
When managed properly, with receipts reinvested effectively, it can also lead to an increase in housing supply. Surely it is better to have two homes: one for the existing tenant exercising their right to buy; and a second new home, funded by the proceeds from that right to buy, for a family on the waiting list. That is known as a “buy one, get one free”. Two homes must be better than one. It has the benefit of allowing specialist accommodation, such as disability accommodation and so forth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, raised. If you get those proceeds, you can start doing that. I do not say this in isolation. When I was leader of Central Bedfordshire, we used the proceeds to build more homes than we sold. Is that not a win-win? It can be done, as we did in Central Bedfordshire and as has been done elsewhere.
We have a generation of young people who increasingly feel locked out of ownership altogether. Many are paying substantial rents every month while finding it impossible to save for a deposit or satisfy affordability requirements. In 1980, London renters spent on average 14% of their income on rent. Today, private renters in London are paying close to 50%. Is it surprising that council housing waiting lists continue to grow? The right to buy is not the primary cause of the pressures facing social housing. The deeper problem is that housing stock has too often not been replaced and that overall housing delivery has lagged behind for many years.
We need to have an honest discussion about the management of social housing, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. Recent figures from the English Housing Survey suggest that around 186,000 social housing households have incomes above £50,000, while approximately 389,000 households are under-occupying social housing. I do not cite these figures to criticise tenants; they simply illustrate the scale of the mismatch that can emerge over time if scarce housing stock is not managed actively and fairly. Social housing is supported by substantial public subsidy. It is entirely reasonable for taxpayers to expect that it is allocated fairly, managed effectively and focused on those in greatest need, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Bird, with his focus on the unemployed. At a time when many families remain on waiting lists for years, these are questions that Parliament should not shy away from addressing.
The Bill misses opportunities elsewhere. As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, raised, it will do little to tackle the well-known shortcomings of shared ownership, despite the fact that many shared owners continue to face significant costs while enjoying only limited benefits of ownership. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, while there are many excellent housing associations, not only is there insufficient focus on accountability where housing associations or registered providers fail tenants through poor management or declining standards but we need to ensure efficient and effective operation and delivery. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said, they need to be accountable.
Alongside new housing delivery, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, we should be thinking much more seriously about regeneration. Across the country, there are communities with enormous potential for renewal, regeneration and improvement, yet this remains largely absent from the Bill.
There is a broader difference of principle at the heart of this debate. We believe that more homes of all tenures are needed. We on these Benches believe that home ownership matters. We believe in aspiration and regeneration. We believe people should have the opportunity to build stability, independence and security for themselves and their families. Of course social housing has a vital role to play; nobody disputes that. It provides an essential safety net for those facing hardship and circumstances beyond their control. However, a successful housing system should do both: provide support for those who need it while helping those who aspire to ownership to achieve it. This Bill does not strike that balance.
As my noble friend Lady Scott said in opening, there are elements of the Bill that we welcome and will support constructively, but there are also significant concerns that this House has a duty to examine carefully. Ultimately, the public want more homes, regeneration, greater affordability, fair access to social housing and, wherever possible, the opportunity to own a home of their own. That is a principle that on these Benches we will continue to defend. I look forward to the further scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority Regulations 2026
Lord Jamieson Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid on 16 March 2026. When referring to the Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority hereafter, I will use the term “strategic authority” unless there is a particular reason to be specific.
This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to widen and deepen devolution across England and the English Devolution White Paper set out our plans to achieve that. Much of the White Paper has now been delivered through Parliament via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity, with mayors and local leaders best placed to take the decisions that benefit their communities.
The White Paper also launched the devolution priority programme to provide a fast track to establish a new wave of mayoral strategic authorities. Following the expressions of interest process, in February 2025 we announced six places on the programme, including Hampshire and the Solent. This statutory instrument will establish the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority and provide for mayoral elections. In doing so, it represents substantial progress towards fulfilling our commitment to move power out of Whitehall and back to those who know their areas best. The Government have worked closely with the constituent councils within Hampshire and the Solent on the instrument. The constituent councils are Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council and Isle of Wight Council. All the constituent councils have consented to the making of this instrument, and I thank local leaders and their councils for their support in getting us to this point.
The instrument will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The amendments made to those provisions by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 do not apply for the purposes of this instrument due to transitional and saving provisions made in a separate instrument, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (Transitional and Saving Provisions) (England) Regulations 2026. The strategic authority will be established on the day after the day on which this instrument is made. The inaugural mayoral election is due to take place on 4 May 2028 and the elected mayor will take office on 8 May 2028 on a four-year term.
The instrument makes provision for the governance arrangements of the strategic authority. Each constituent council will appoint one of its elected members to be a member of the strategic authority, with Hampshire County Council appointing a further member. The mayor will also be a member once in office. The strategic authority can also appoint non-constituent and associate members to support its work. Each voting member is to have one vote. Before the mayor takes office, by the unanimous request of all constituent authorities, there will be specific interim governance arrangements for decisions on certain matters, as set out in the instrument. Once the mayor takes office, the vast majority of decisions are to be determined by a simple majority of the members present and voting; that majority must include the mayor or the deputy mayor acting in place of the mayor.
The instrument provides some functions in relation to transport and economic development, but there is a strong link here with the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act. On establishment, the Hampshire and the Solent strategic authority will be classed as a mayoral strategic authority, and the functions reserved for that tier will automatically be conferred. Even before the mayor is in office, the strategic authority will be able to exercise mayoral strategic authority functions, with the exception of those that are reserved specifically for the mayor. That is why this instrument confers fewer functions than previous instruments establishing strategic authorities. The functions that it does confer, focused on local transport and economic development, are designed both to support the work of the strategic authority before all of the provisions of the Act are in force and to enable it to deliver the benefits of devolution from day one.
MHCLG consulted on a proposal to establish the strategic authority between 17 February and 13 April 2025. The purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing the strategic authority. The consultation was promoted using social media, a communications campaign, a dedicated website, online and in-person events, and the distribution of consultation materials. Responses could be made online, by email or by post.
Responses were received from a wide range of stakeholder groups, including members of the public, businesses, councils, universities, the third sector and other bodies. A summary of all the responses has been published on GOV.UK. The Government carefully considered the responses and, on 17 July 2025, confirmed to Parliament that the statutory test to establish a strategic authority had been met. Subject to the making of this instrument, the strategic authority will receive devolved funding, including for transport and adult skills, capacity funding and a 30-year mayoral investment fund to support key local priorities.
This instrument represents clear progress on our mission to widen and deepen devolution in England. It will make this a reality in Hampshire and the Solent. It will empower local leaders to deliver for their communities, improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for introducing these regulations and outlining their effect. I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire, although that does not extend quite as far as Hampshire.
We on these Benches recognise the Government’s broader ambitions to pursue devolution and to simplify local government structures. In principle, we are in favour of real devolution in which decisions are taken closer to the communities they affect. However, devolution cannot become simply a process of restructuring for restructuring’s sake; nor can it come at the expense of democratic consent, local accountability or financial clarity.
The first concern is the apparent lack of public support for these proposals. The Government’s own consultation process showed that a clear majority of respondents did not agree that the creation of this combined authority would deliver the benefits claimed for it. During the passage of the then English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, we made it clear that the Government’s approach should be informed by local public consent. This raises an important constitutional point: if the Government are creating a new strategic authority with a directly elected mayor, new spending powers and significant transport responsibilities, what justification is there for proceeding where there is such evident public scepticism? Can the Minister explain what threshold of public support the Government believe is necessary for reforms of this scale to command democratic legitimacy?
Secondly, there is the question of the mayoral elections that were postponed from the original date of May 2026 to May 2028. Can the Minister explain why the Government concluded that this postponement was necessary? What assessment was made of the impact that this decision would have on public confidence in the devolution process? The postponement of mayoral elections raises important questions regarding funding, investment and delivery. These devolution arrangements were presented to local areas on the basis that mayoral structures would help unlock funding, strategic transport investment and economic development opportunities. Can the Minister clarify, therefore, what impact the delay to the elections will have on the timing and quantum of these funding allocations and devolved investment programmes, as well as on the implementation of the Government’s wider devolution agenda in Hampshire and the Solent?
Thirdly, there are important questions around accountability and cost. Part 6 of the regulations provides that the constituent councils must ensure that the costs of the authority are met alongside expenditure incurred by the mayor in relation to their mayoral functions. At a time when councils are already under significant financial strain, local taxpayers will understandably ask what tangible benefit they are receiving in return for the creation of another governance layer. Can the Minister set out what estimate has been made of the ongoing administrative and operational costs of the authority? Do the Government expect these costs ultimately to be offset by efficiencies elsewhere in local government?
There are also wider concerns regarding the transfer of powers. These regulations confer transport-planning responsibilities and related functions on the authority, including powers relating to local transport plans and grants. Yet responsibility for day-to-day local services will remain with constituent councils, creating a risk of blurred accountability between the local council, the combined authority and the future mayor. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure clear lines of responsibility, in particular where transport policy decisions affect local service delivery and local budgets?
Finally, these regulations cannot be viewed in isolation from the Government’s wider programme of local government reorganisation. Many residents across Hampshire and the Solent will understandably feel uncertain about what these changes will mean in practice, how power will be exercised and whether local voices will genuinely be strengthened or absorbed into larger regional structures. We have seen proposals for the wholesale reorganisation of the county and district councils into five unitary councils, involving the break-up of several district councils. This is causing significant concern in the local area, particularly in what I would describe as the greater Southampton and greater Portsmouth areas but are, I believe, classified as South West Hampshire and South East Hampshire, where there has been a significant enlargement of those two cities to incorporate significant parts of their rural hinterland.
In particular, in the case of Southampton, there is a splitting up of the New Forest district council and the Test Valley district council, so there will be a double whammy in terms of reorganisation. There is particular concern around breaking up existing communities and the efficiencies of doing all those changes, as well as a concern about scale for some of the traditional county council functions, such as adult social care and children’s services, including whether splitting them into five will deliver genuine efficiencies.
Devolution succeeds when it carries public confidence and when accountability is clear. It is less convincing when structures appear to be imposed from above, with elections delayed and costs transferred on to councils that are already facing acute pressures, and where key decisions on funding are still held by Whitehall. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurance on these points today; I look forward to her response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his comments. I know that he has great experience of dealing with matters such as this. I will pick up each of his points in turn.
The first is the issue of restructuring for its own sake. That is just not where we are with this. We have had extensive negotiation with local government. The proposals that were put forward came to us from local government, and we are acting on those proposals. Anyone who has been involved in local government for as long as I and the noble Lord have been will know that carrying on as we were was not an option: it is not effective or efficient, and it does not deliver best for either the people we serve or the country, so we did need to change things.
The noble Lord mentioned consultation. It is an important point, and I will answer his question in two ways. First, the purpose of the consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effect of establishing a mayoral strategic authority over the proposed geography. It was never intended to be a referendum. A range of views were provided by respondents, including evidence setting out the potential benefits as well as some concerns raised, and the Government carefully considered the responses received. The results of the consultation formed part of the assessment made by the Secretary of State, but the relevant statutory tests set out in Section 46 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act were met for Hampshire and the Solent.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can she clarify two points?
First, the Minister mentioned the 30-year funding. The point is that, in effect, it has been delayed for two years by a delay to the mayoral elections: obviously, that is of concern locally.
Secondly, in looking at wider devolution, there is concern around the new authorities being a lot smaller than Hampshire county council. We need confidence that they will not end up having higher costs in the provision of the two critical regulatory services of adult social care and children’s services.
Related to that, looking at South East Hampshire in particular, the Southampton-based authority, in effect, two districts are being split up and two half-districts, a full district and a unitary council, are being amalgamated. My geography may not be perfect—it may not be quite half—but this is quite a complex thing. What confidence do the Government and the Minister have that that will be done successfully, without risking any of those key services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take the second point first because, as I hope I conveyed in my winding speech, the proposals we have considered have all come from authorities themselves. They set out very clearly the proposals that they sent forward and, in most areas, there were a number of different proposals. Each one of those proposals had to set out clearly how public services were going to be managed, both through the transition and going forward; if they did not do so, they did not get put in front of Ministers for the decision-making process. So all the proposals that came before Ministers met those criteria. It was for the local authorities to set out how they would do that, and they have done so in the case of Hampshire and the Solent.
On the point about funding, I did say that there will be the 30-year mayoral investment fund, but, in the two years prior to the mayor being elected, the authority will receive a portion of this funding to support early delivery of the growth priorities, and it will also receive other devolved funding for things such as transport and adult skills. I hope that will enable the authority to establish itself as a strategic authority with a strong foundation, which we want, before we have the election for mayor.