National Empty Homes Strategy

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for opening this debate in his usual powerful way. I echo the tribute that other noble Lords have paid to his fantastic work on homelessness and rough sleeping over many decades. The noble Lord has an enormous record of supporting those who have to sleep on our streets or who are facing homelessness, as the powerful testimony from my noble friend Lord Griffiths demonstrated.

I also welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. I remember meetings with him when he was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, and it is great to see him back. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for all her work with the Watford homeless charity—she does marvellous work—and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his constant contributions to housing.

Today’s debate has shown our shared determination to tackle homelessness and make better use of existing housing stock. There is never any argument about that among any of the political parties. Everyone should have a safe, secure and affordable home, and we should make the best possible use of the homes we already have. But there is still work to do. Our Government inherited a profound homelessness challenge. Rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths highlighted, one of the issues causing this is that there are people fleeing domestic abuse. There are many issues, and this Government have had to introduce a raft of legislation to start tackling the causes and finding solutions to the homelessness problem.

The situation is unacceptable, and we need urgent intervention. That is why we have invested more than £4 billion for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including funding for our national plan to end homelessness and the rough sleeping programme, which is certainly not in abeyance, I would say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. We are investing £950 million through the local authority housing fund and offering the biggest boost to social housing in a generation through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme.

Preventing homelessness fundamentally depends on having enough suitable homes. That means building new homes and, of course, making the best possible use of those we already have. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, is right about right to buy, and our recent Social Housing Bill is starting to action the loss of social homes. We have not decided to abandon right to buy, but we have said that when a social home is sold, we must build a replacement. That is why we have decided that 100% of the receipts from those homes should go back to councils, and that new homes that councils build should not be sold for 35 years after they have been built, so that councils have a chance to recoup through the rent the money spent on them.

This brings us to the role of empty homes. Homelessness and empty homes are distinct challenges, and bringing an empty property back into use will not always provide a swift solution to those in immediate need of housing. But where we can bring previously empty properties back into use, it can provide temporary or settled accommodation and help to relieve pressure on local housing markets. The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned a number of initiatives from local government and housing associations. These continue to evolve and I see them all the time when I go around the country visiting our local councils.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for bringing this question before the Committee and for highlighting in his speech the frustration felt by everyone in this sector and by everyone who cares about housing that we have empty homes, sometimes long-term empty homes, at the same time as we have people sleeping on our streets and an enormous temporary accommodation bill, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. There are around 303,000 long-term empty homes in England. The Government want to see more of these homes brought back into use.

That brings me to the proposal at the heart of today’s debate: a national empty homes strategy. Let me first be clear that our Government share the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Bird; bringing empty homes back into use can provide homes for people who need them, support regeneration and help to relieve pressure on local housing markets. But recognising the importance of the issue does not necessarily mean that a new national strategy is the right response.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, identified, empty homes arise for many different reasons. Properties vary in their condition, ownership and the cost of bringing them back into use. Local housing pressures and property markets also differ considerably. A single national approach could, therefore, be overly prescriptive and may not reflect what will work in each area. It could create additional reporting and administrative requirements for councils, which would in itself draw resources away from the practical work of identifying empty homes, engaging owners and returning properties to use.

We already have national strategies that address the wider challenges to which empty homes contribute, including our National Plan to End Homelessness. Crucially, councils are already taking action. They are best placed to understand why homes are empty in their areas and to decide which course of action will be most effective. Many councils already have their own empty homes strategies, reflecting local circumstances and priorities; I commend them and hope that those councils that have not yet considered an empty homes strategy will do so.

The central challenge is, therefore, not a lack of recognition or another layer of strategy but making sure that councils can make effective use of the tools available to them and match the right intervention to the right property. For some empty homes, financial incentives, such as the council tax premium, may encourage home owners to bring their property back into use. Where owners are unwilling to act, stronger enforcement powers, such as enforced sale, compulsory purchase or empty dwelling management orders, may be used. As we outlined in the English devolution White Paper, we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes. We will provide further detail in due course; I hate that term, but I assure noble Lords that in this case “in due course” means very soon.

Where the objective is to use empty homes to provide accommodation for people who are homeless, funding is often required. Councils can access a range of funding opportunities for this purpose. Every part of the toolkit has a role. By encouraging, enabling or requiring more empty homes to return to occupation, these levers can improve the use of the existing housing stock, increase local supply and help ease wider housing pressures.

I want to make some specific comments about funding because a number of noble Lords—everybody who spoke, actually, but in particular the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Young and Lord Greenhalgh—mentioned it. Local authorities and registered providers can access funding, such as through the local authority housing fund or the social and affordable homes programme, to bring empty homes back into use. Both can use SAHP funds to purchase market housing for affordable housing, and bids are assessed on individual merit by Homes England and the GLA.

The £950 million fourth round of the local authority housing fund is for councils in England to increase their supply of better-quality temporary accommodation. It also provides safe and suitable housing for some families, such as those on the Afghan resettlement programme. Councils can partner with registered providers to use LAHF funding to purchase existing properties, including empty homes; that is a big resource.

In some areas, empty homes can help reduce reliance on expensive and unsuitable temporary accommodation by quickly bringing existing housing back into use. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, commented on the nearly £3 billion spent on temporary accommodation. We want to make sure that we return long-term vacant properties—empty homes—to occupation in order to increase the housing supply. This will vary from area to area, of course.

The noble Lords, Lord Bird, Lord Griffiths and Lord Greenhalgh, referred to the rise in the numbers of children in temporary accommodation. It is an absolute scandal; it is unacceptable that those numbers are increasing. I should say, though, that the number of children in the most harmful form of accommodation—bed-and-breakfast accommodation—is decreasing each quarter. Since the peak on 30 June 2024, the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation over six weeks has fallen by 75% to 1,000 households, as of 31 March 2026—but that is 1,000 households too many for me; I want to see that figure down to zero. This encouraging progress follows our £30 million investment over three years in the emergency accommodation reduction programme.

I am running out of time so let me conclude by saying that I am sure that the purpose of this debate is to draw attention to the importance of empty homes. Let me be unequivocal for the noble Lord, Lord Bird: our Government believe that bringing suitable empty properties back into use is an essential piece of this puzzle. However, we believe that the most effective approach is to empower and encourage councils to act locally, supported by appropriate national powers and funding, rather than imposing what might appear to be a one-size-fits-all national strategy. We will respond formally to the policy paper sent by the noble Lord to the department.

In closing, I thank all Members across the Committee for their very important contributions to this important debate.

Sports Clubs: Special Enterprise Zone Status

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this QSD. I thank my noble friend Lord Mann for securing this debate and opening it—because it gives me an opportunity to talk about football, which is never a bad thing as far as I am concerned, but also because it is an important issue. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

My noble friend Lord Mann raises an interesting Question. Sports clubs have not been given special enterprise zone status. Enterprise zones were not designed as a designation for individual organisations; rather, they were place-based interventions, intended to support economic growth and regeneration within defined geographic areas. However, my noble friend’s Question raises a broader and important issue: the contribution that sporting institutions can make to economic growth, regeneration and community development, and I do not think we should ever underestimate that.

According to DCMS’s Sport Satellite Account, published in September 2024, the sports sector contributed an estimated £53.6 billion direct to the UK economy in 2021, equivalent to 2.6% of total UK gross value added. That is a fantastic contribution which demonstrates the significance of the role that sport plays as an economic sector in its own right.

Professional football has a particularly strong relationship with place. Unlike many other major economic sectors, football clubs and stadiums are distributed across cities and towns across the country. Clubs can support employment, local businesses, visitor spending and investment, while stadiums can provide a focal point for wider regeneration. That sits at the heart of what my noble friend Lord Mann is discussing.

That important contribution is here, both for the opportunities it provides and for volunteering, participation and community cohesion. Sport makes that important contribution right across the United Kingdom. I have seen this close at hand in my own area. My noble friend Lord Bassam has already kindly mentioned my own football team. If he made himself Lord Bassam of Brighton and Hove Albion, that would be probably a first in your Lordships’ House. I am lucky enough that my team and my town share the same name, so I can have both designations in my title. My football club makes an enormous contribution to our community, across all ages, from youth football to walking football, and across our community, through social events. It has opened a nursery, and recently an all-weather training facility. During Covid, our club played an absolutely key role at the heart of our community. The first-team players took lunches to our older residents, which brightened people’s days so much. It plays a key role.

The government position today is that sports clubs have an important role to play in supporting growth, but the most effective approach is to integrate sporting assets within broader plans for regeneration and local economic development. The Government are already acting on the opportunity presented by stadium-led regeneration. The Prime Minister has reaffirmed his commitment to a stadium regeneration accelerator, through which the Minister for Growth and the Minister for Sport will work with mayors to help major sports-led projects bring jobs, investment and housing to local areas.

The accelerator is bringing together government departments, local leaders, sporting bodies and investors around viable projects, helping to identify and address barriers to delivery. It is not a capital fund for stadium construction; stadium redevelopment is led and funded by clubs and private investors, while the Government use their convening role to help realise the wider benefits for places. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, pointed out, Leeds illustrates the scale of the opportunity here. The expansion of Elland Road is being taken forward by Leeds United, while the Government and local and regional partners are working to support the wider regeneration potential around the stadium.

This approach recognises that major sporting assets can act as anchors for regeneration and place-making. It also reflects the Government’s wider local growth agenda, which seeks to empower local leaders and support regeneration that responds to the needs and ambitions of individual places. In some places, mayoral development corporations can complement this work by co-ordinating planning, land assembly and infrastructure delivery across complex regeneration areas. The appropriate model will depend on local circumstances and must support a broader plan for the place, rather than simply the commercial interests of an individual club. That does not mean that football clubs and other stakeholders are not key players with mayors and local councillors in driving that regeneration forward.

Alongside support for regeneration and growth—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is particularly interested in grass-roots sport—the Government continue to invest in grass-roots sport and community facilities. At least £400 million will be invested in new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities over the next four years, while Sport England invests more than £250 million each year through Exchequer and National Lottery funding to support participation and to tackle inactivity in communities across the country.

There are also forms of support available to many community sports organisations through existing tax, business rates and funding arrangements. Community amateur sports clubs that meet the relevant eligibility criteria can benefit from charitable rate relief providing 80% relief on their business rates bill, and sports clubs may be eligible for the lower retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers where they are open to visiting members of the public—this probably answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield.

I know that the noble Baroness will not expect me to comment specifically on any Budget proposals that are coming forward—she would not have done that when she was a Minister either—but we are already undertaking a lot to support sport, including the new, permanently lower multiplier for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and the wider support package with a budget of £4.3 million. The small business retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier is set at 38.2p in 2026-27, 5p below the national small business multiplier, and the standard RHL multiplier is set at 43p, 5p below the national standard multiplier. They are also eligible for the other benefits that I spoke about earlier.

I also wish to challenge the issue around NICs again, as I have had to do many times. The NICs rise does not apply to young people. Businesses, whether sport businesses or others, do not need to pay the additional charges on NICs for young people who are employed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Addington, referred to the lessons the Government have learned from previous enterprise zones and how these have informed current local growth policies. It is important to say that the experience of enterprise zones has directly informed what we are doing in government around newer special economic zone programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, mentioned freeports and investment zones; they have all been informed by the enterprise zone experience.

Officials identified five factors as critical to success in any such zone: a clear strategic sector focus; a compelling value proposition for investors, including infrastructure and skills; strong local governance; genuine integration with the surrounding local economy; and co-ordinated investment promotion. These were all built into the freeports model. To address displacement directly, freeport tax reliefs apply only to new investment, and business rates relief can be subject to a displacement test—a direct response to the evidence from enterprise zones. It was felt that enterprise zones were often just moving people locally, not bringing in investment from outside. Freeports and investment zones have been brought together as industrial strategy zones now, offering potential investors a more streamlined and coherent package. I hope that answers Members’ questions.

Mayoral development corporations are developing all the time, and they can enable mayors to use significant private sector investment in world-class sports facilities to unlock that wider regeneration potential, including housing, jobs and facilities for local residents and communities, utilising powers such as planning, CPO and infrastructure provision. I probably should not mention Manchester at the moment—I think Manchester United is having a bit of a tough time, so I will not step on any toes there—but there is a big project in Manchester, and the Old Trafford Regeneration Mayoral Development Corporation is acting as a driving force.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to planning. The steps we have taken both through the revised NPPF and the Planning and Infrastructure Act—which we recently took through the House to introduce a clearer, rules-based process for planning—will help with some of this regeneration, whether it is for football grounds or any other sports facility.

In closing, I thank everyone in the Committee for their very important contributions to this debate. Our thinking is emerging on this, so I have listened with interest to what all noble Peers have had to say.

Home Building Target

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in reaching their target of building 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.

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

My Lords, we are driving progress through our bold planning reforms: the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme fund, and our new £16 billion National Housing Bank, which is expected to support over 500,000 homes. Alongside programmes such as the New Homes Accelerator and Small Sites Aggregator, we are working with industry and local authorities to deliver the homes this country needs. The latest statistics, published in June, show that an estimated 392,400 net additional homes have been built this Parliament, with a 15% increase in starts and a 54% increase in outlying planning proposals.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but only Ministers believe that the 1.5 million target is achievable; even the National Audit Office said that the chances are slim. The Prime Minister has recently decided to channel public money for housing away from housing associations and through local authorities. First, does the Minister agree that this means we will get fewer social homes, because housing associations can top up public money with private borrowing while the local authorities cannot? Will she urge him to change direction? Secondly, does she agree that many of those renting could afford a mortgage if they had some help with a deposit? Has she read today’s Financial Times, which indicates that the previous Secretary of State urged the Government, before he was sacked, to introduce a successor to Help to Buy? Will she urge the Prime Minister to continue with that, as this will give the market the confidence it so badly needs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

On the noble Lord’s first question, the Prime Minister was talking about support between local authorities and housing associations. It is important that we have good collaboration between the two partners in delivering social housing. I look forward to a very productive relationship between local government and our registered providers. I do not believe that it will lower the number of houses that can be delivered, particularly as we now have the National Housing Bank that this Government brought in. I will write to the noble Lord on his second question.

[Lord Best (CB)]

I am afraid that we are not going to make the 1.5 million new homes target, but we can pull out all the stops and get as near as possible to it. Can the Minister prevail on her ministerial colleagues to commit rather more of the £39 billion that has been set aside to social housing? We can get on with that at a time when the private market is in the doldrums. There are lots of opportunities to help the construction industry get on with the social housing programme, which is so important.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We committed to delivering a stretch target of 1.5 million homes. We know it is a stretch target, but it is better to aim high in this respect. We have already announced, in August, the first tranche of the £39 billion of funding for social housing. We will move forward with the following tranches as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister said. Housing associations this year built the highest number of social rented homes in the past decade, and National Housing Federation figures suggest that that will further increase. Can she add to what she said and confirm whether her department is making representations to the Treasury to match the ambition of the housing association and council sectors and to increase investment in the social and affordable homes programme in the Autumn Budget?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that my noble friend would not expect me to comment on the Autumn Budget in advance of the Chancellor’s announcements. It is important that we remember that this £39 billion investment is the highest level of investment in social and affordable homes for generations. As I said, we have already begun implementing that programme, and further funding is available through future allocations. For the first time, three councils have been awarded strategic partnership status outside London, demonstrating how our councils are stepping up to meet these ambitions. We are also removing the barriers to council housebuilding through a 10-year rent settlement, rent convergence, Public Works Loan Board borrowing rates, right-to-buy reform and a further £46 million investment through Capacity to Build to strengthen councils’ skills, expertise and capacity.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. Given the dire state of the housing market, surely the response should be, “Yes Minister”—a very brave Minister retaining the target. Can the Minister reassure the House that to get construction moving, the Government will give priority to encouraging private sector investment in social housing, rather than relying on Help to Buy schemes, which normally end up with higher prices?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am keen to encourage as much investment in the delivery of social and affordable homes as we can. When I did a workshop on this in the City, there was a great appetite for patient capital investment in social housing. I hope we will be able to encourage that. We have reviewed the Help to Buy system, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, indicated. We are working through whether that is the right way to go. There were some issues with the previous Help to Buy scheme. We continue to explore ways to deliver more housing. Certainly, I would encourage investment in this.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, many villages are increasingly unable to retain young families, agricultural workers and other key members of the rural workforce because of a shortage of affordable homes. As the Government pursue their housebuilding target, how will they ensure that rural communities remain sustainable local economies, rather than becoming places local people are priced out of?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are a number of issues that we need to address. One is the rural homes exception, which we have thought about. Local authorities need to make sure that they have enough rural housing in their local plans. We need to make sure that we have rural homes exception policies, so that local people can determine what housing is built where. There is also the issue of making sure the services are there to support rural housing. All these issues are important, and we must bring those together as we make sure there is sufficient housing in rural areas.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

The Minister frequently trumpets the Government’s £39 billion social homes programme as a means of accelerating housing delivery. Can she tell the House how many social homes will be completed and occupied by July 2029 through this grant? Would she categorise that figure as a firm commitment or a “slim chance” target, as the Secretary of State describes the commitment to 1.5 million new homes by July 2029?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I say it is a great investment, because it is an enormous investment in social and affordable housing. Significantly, the previous Government left us in a housing crisis, so I will not take any criticism from the other side about investing in social housing. The funding that Homes England is committing now will deliver 73,500 homes via strategic partnerships. The GLA intends to offer allocations of at least £8 billion and will set out shortly the number of homes it expects to achieve through the initial allocation. We will consider whether a national central government target or ambition is appropriate in this regard.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the approach the Government are taking. I ask the Minister whether funds could be made available for housing associations to immediately purchase properties for social rent. There are so many on the market, some of which are under housing association shared ownership anyway.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I appreciate all the issues around shared ownership, and we have debated those extensively in your Lordships’ House. Housing associations manage their own finances—they are independent organisations. Many of them purchase houses that become available on the open market, and we would encourage them to continue to do so.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s absolute commitment to building 1.5 million houses. How do the Government square their decision to build a data centre in the heart of the East End of London—Brick Lane, which is occupied by communities and hundreds of families—which would take away scarce land for housing, to which the Government are committed?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on individual planning applications from the Dispatch Box. We always have to get the balance right between meeting the needs of our economy—data centres are, of course, a critical factor in driving our economy forward—and making sure there is enough land for housing. That situation is the responsibility of our local authorities when they go through their planning processes, unless data centres are referred as part of our national infrastructure system. I will not comment on any individual application here and now.

Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, I am very pleased to open this Second Reading debate on the Representation of the People Bill. Noble Lords across the House bring great experience of electoral law, electoral administration and the practical operation of our democracy. I look forward to the contributions that will be made today and to the constructive scrutiny that our House will bring to the Bill.

This Bill renews our democracy for a new generation, opening up participation and strengthening the integrity of our elections. It restores confidence, reinforcing trust with stronger political finance rules and better protections against harassment and intimidation, closing down opportunities for those who would seek to undermine our democracy. But it would be wrong to introduce this debate without acknowledging and reflecting on events of recent times.

When I catch the 6.15 am or the 6.31 am train from Stevenage to London in the mornings, I share the carriages of that train and then the Underground with people whose interests are at the heart of our community: tradespeople, in their steel-toecap boots; public sector workers, including those in blue light services, heading for their early shifts; and small business owners getting an early start to prepare for their day. It is a fundamental principle of our democracy that every one of their votes is exactly equal to the votes of millionaires, crypto bros and industry magnates. It is that which sits front and centre in this Bill.

We must put politics back under public control. We all share concerns about the rise of big money and its ability to dominate public power. At its heart, this Bill is about renewing the foundations of our electoral system so that it remains fair, secure, transparent and accessible in the years ahead. At the Last Night of the Proms on Saturday, the conductor, Sakari Oramo, referred to another version of AI, which was authenticity and integrity. That must sit at the heart of electoral reform, so that we restore the confidence of the 6 am crew that their voice really counts.

Delivering on our manifesto commitment, this Bill extends the franchise to eligible 16 and 17 year-olds for UK parliamentary elections and other reserved and excepted polls. It enables more automated forms of electoral registration, broadens the forms of voter identification that may be used at polling stations, and makes a range of changes to the conduct and administration of elections, referendums and recall petitions. The Bill strengthens the rules on political donations and expenditure, including measures to reduce the risk of foreign money entering our politics. It improves transparency in digital campaigning material, strengthens enforcement and information sharing by the Electoral Commission, and requires tougher sentencing where offences are aggravated by hostility towards candidates, elected officeholders, campaigners or electoral staff.

Opportunities for those who seek to undermine or illicitly influence our democracy must and will be closed down. This Bill responds directly to a changing and increasingly hostile threat environment and takes action to tackle risks by strengthening safeguards, closing loopholes and hardening defences. Taken together, these measures will help deliver a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system. They will support public confidence, protect our democracy from those who would seek to undermine it and open participation to a new generation of voters.

The Bill is ambitious but practical. It addresses the everyday operation of democracy: who can take part, how they register and vote, how campaigns are funded and conducted, and how the rules are enforced. The balance is important. The Government are not seeking reform for their own sake. The measures in the Bill respond to real changes in political campaigning, how people participate in politics and how threats to democratic confidence can arise. Some of these changes are technological, some are administrative and some reflect the need to ensure that our democratic arrangements command confidence across generations. The Bill therefore looks both to the integrity of the system and to the experience of those who use it: voters, candidates, parties, campaigners and electoral administrators.

The Bill is not the totality of our ambition for electoral reform; work will continue. As a first step, the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for MHCLG have written to the Electoral Commission to review spending limits, which we believe are too high. We are establishing a cross-government task and finish team to consider threats to UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence and broader threats to political equality.

As noble Lords would expect, the Bill has not remained frozen in aspic since its introduction; it has continued to develop through scrutiny, engagement and the Government’s consideration of how best to give effect to its objectives. During its Commons stages, the Government brought forward both substantive and technical amendments to strengthen the Bill in response to points raised by Members and to ensure it better delivers its policy intent.

For example, the Government brought forward amendments to strengthen the “know your donor” requirements and further tighten the rules relating to donations made by unincorporated associations. Those changes were designed to improve transparency and ensure that the political finance regime keeps pace with the risks it is intended to address. These risks cannot be overstated. The threat to our democracy from foreign influence and hidden sources of political funding are an ever-growing danger—one that we cannot afford to delay tackling.

Responding to further evidence of the threat we face—namely, the conviction of Nathan Gill, as well as cases such as Christine Lee—we commissioned Philip Rycroft to review foreign financial influence and interference in politics. His report was thorough and challenging, and the Government have accepted its recommendations. Safeguarding the integrity, transparency and fairness of our electoral system is a fundamental priority, and the Bill provides an important vehicle for taking that work forward.

A number of recommendations from the Rycroft review were therefore implemented through amendments made to the Bill on Report in the Commons. Those amendments form a significant part of the Government’s wider response to the risks identified by the review. The first of those changes concerns crypto assets. The current political donations framework does not sufficiently reflect the particular risks that crypto assets can present, including the difficulty of identifying the true source of a donation. That creates a risk that malign actors, including state actors, could seek to obscure the origin of the funds. The Bill therefore introduces a ban on the use of crypto assets as a means of making political donations. To support that change, the Government have amended the Bill to clarify the meaning of a donation under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That will ensure that property, including crypto assets transferred to a party to meet an expense, is treated as a donation, so that the law cannot be circumvented simply because value is transferred through property rather than cash.

The Bill caps donations to registered political parties by overseas electors at £100,000. This also applies to individuals who were formerly resident outside the UK, who are subject to the cap for a minimum of a calendar year after arrival here. That responds to concerns identified by the Rycroft review: first, that the origin of funds from overseas donors can be harder to trace; and, secondly, that democratic fairness may be put at risk if individuals are able to make unlimited donations into the political system while having only a limited connection to public life in the United Kingdom.

Further amendments change the test for company donations so that it is based on profit rather than revenue. That change follows careful consideration of the Rycroft review and engagement with stakeholders. Profit provides a clearer indication of a company’s financial position and helps ensure that donations come from companies undertaking genuine economic activity.

The Bill was also amended to implement the Rycroft recommendation that the Electoral Commission’s information-sharing powers should be extended. This will enable the commission to receive relevant information from relevant public authorities as defined in the Bill, supporting more effective regulation of political finance and a better understanding of emerging risks. The Government also amended the Bill to extend the commission’s powers to require disclosure of information outside a formal investigation, allowing the commission to more proactively monitor compliance, support timely regulation during election periods, and take a more proportionate and effective approach to enforcement.

Beyond the Rycroft recommendations, on Report the Government introduced a targeted regulation-making power into the Bill to allow key political finance restrictions, including those relating to crypto assets, overseas elector donation caps and company donations, to be extended beyond political parties via secondary legislation in the future. This is to ensure that malign actors cannot circumvent the rules by providing to other non-party regulated donees.

While much of the consideration of the Bill so far has been focused on strengthening the political finance provisions, the Government tabled further amendments on Report to extend the maximum duration of longer-term postal and proxy postal voting arrangements from three years to five, and to better align the duration of anonymous elector registration provisions with those changes. These changes will provide greater clarity and consistency while reducing repeated administrative burdens on people who may already be vulnerable.

The Government have also amended the Bill to clarify when an overseas elector may be removed from the electoral register. Overseas electors must satisfy specific eligibility requirements when they register. Although registration lasts for three years, circumstances may change during that period. These amendments ensure that an individual who no longer meets the requirements can be removed, helping electoral registers remain accurate. Taken together, the Commons amendments strengthen the public scrutiny of political finance, reduce avoidable administrative burdens and ensure that the Bill responds sensibly to modern forms of participation, campaigning and donation.

As the Bill has progressed, our desire to engage with all interested parties and our willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints has continued. Following the strength of feeling expressed at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Government tabled an amendment in Committee to repeal the Government’s powers to designate a strategy and policy statement to which the Electoral Commission must have regard. That repeal supports our manifesto commitment to strengthen democracy and uphold the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission.

The Government have committed to tabling an amendment during the Bill’s passage through this House to strengthen accessibility at polling stations for voters with disabilities. We will develop that amendment in the spirit of the new clause brought forward on Report in the Commons, working with interested Members of both Houses to ensure that any new provision is proportionate, practical and deliverable.

In addition to introducing a robust regime that ensures that donors contributing above the £100,000 annual cap must demonstrate a genuine and ongoing connection to the United Kingdom, we are considering how we will strengthen the residency requirements, including ensuring that the length of time spent in the UK aligns with broader government policy. We will continue to engage with political parties bilaterally and through the Parliamentary Parties Panel, and we will provide the House with further details in due course. I am keen for that spirit of constructive engagement to continue as the Bill proceeds through this House. I have hosted a drop-in session for all Peers, and I have been pleased to meet a number of noble Lords separately. Throughout the passage of this Bill, my door will remain open to those who wish to discuss any aspect of it with me.

Outside this House, we have worked and will continue to work with bodies such as the Parliamentary Parties Panel and stakeholders across the electoral sector to ensure that the Bill operates effectively for political parties, electors and administrators. We have also engaged with Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, recognising that implementation will require continued close working with the devolved Governments and legislative consent in those areas within the responsibility of the devolved legislatures.

I also recognise that successful implementation will matter as much as the legislation itself. Electoral administrators, returning officers and those who support the running of elections locally will be central to making many of these reforms work in practice. The Government will continue to engage closely with them as the Bill progresses and as the necessary secondary legislation, guidance and operational changes are developed. We want reforms that are ambitious but also workable, clear and capable of commanding confidence on the ground.

Democracy is not sustained by institutions and legislation alone. It depends on people believing that their voice matters, that the rules are fair and that the outcome of an election reflects the free choice of the electorate. That confidence must never be taken for granted. This is a substantial and important set of reforms to electoral law. I know that noble Lords will bring expertise, rigour and practical insight to its consideration. I look forward to engaging with those debates in the constructive spirit in which the Bill has been developed. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful, wide-ranging and characteristically well-informed debate. I have particularly enjoyed some of the history lessons we have heard about, though I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that many of the dates she gave were before the Labour Party came into existence—well done for winning those elections. The breadth of experience brought to bear by this House, particularly on electoral matters, is one of its great strengths, and I welcome the careful scrutiny that noble Lords have given to the principles and purposes of this Bill. I, too, echo the thanks that have been given to the many organisations that have provided briefings to us all. I particularly thank Philip Rycroft for all his work on his excellent report.

At its heart, the Representation of the People Bill is about strengthening confidence in our democracy, ensuring that our electoral system is secure, accessible and fit for the future; that those who administer and participate in elections can do so safely; and that every eligible citizen is able to take part freely and with confidence. My noble friend Lady Paul spoke powerfully in saying that challenges to our democracy do not come from voters turning up to vote at their local polling stations—we know that. But challenges do come from elsewhere, and we must all put our minds to how we tackle them.

I was interested to hear both that the Bill is too big and that it does not include the things which noble Lords from around the House want in it. We have also heard that it is being rushed through—that is an opinion—and we were asked whether it will be in time to address imminent crises in some of the areas we are looking at. We can only do our best to get things through as quickly as we can, and to create a Bill that is practicable and manageable but which tackles the main issues.

I will seek to respond to the main points raised in the debate. Where I am not able to cover every contribution in detail, I will of course write to noble Lords. It has been a long debate and I am pretty sure I will not get to everything.

I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield for his contributions to your Lordships’ House and I wish him well in his retirement. It was a great honour that he chose this debate for his valedictory, and I am grateful for everything he has done during his time here.

I thank my noble friend Lord Macintosh of Eastwood for his maiden speech, which was described by my noble friend Lord Foulkes as powerful, elegant and witty. I totally agree with those sentiments. I note that my noble friend Lord Macintosh is from the Isle of Skye—I have been there only once, but it is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been, and I envy him that. I also echo his thoughts. While we are talking about the political world, as we do in this Bill, all of us owe thanks to our families who put up with the vagaries of living with our political careers. I thank him and wish him well in his career in your Lordships’ House.

I start with some of the points made about engagement on the Bill, which is crucial. The measures in this Bill have been developed through close engagement with key partners from across the electoral community and the devolved Governments, and with younger people, civil society organisations, academics, think tanks, the Parliamentary Parties Panel, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, colleagues from across government, and so on. To deliver these changes, we will continue to work closely with our partners in local and devolved government and with political parties, the electoral sector, education and civil society, and citizens themselves, as we need to ensure that impacts are thoroughly considered and changes are successfully implemented. I absolutely dispute the accusation of lack of consultation. I have been provided with a long list of meetings and engagement that I am happy to provide to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady O’Neill. I checked that Philip Rycroft did consult with the Conservative Party during the course of his report.

There has been a great deal of talk—not surprisingly in the current circumstances—about donation caps. My noble friends Lord Wills and Lord Foulkes will know that my style is both to listen and to act on Members’ concerns. This Bill will be no exception to that. The noble Lords, Lord Evans of Weardale, Lord Rennard and Lord Carter, my noble friends Lord Watson and Lady Hodge and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, wanted to insert a wide enabling power in the Bill. As I said in my introductory speech, we must put politics back under public control. There are shared concerns about the rise of big money in politics and its ability to dominate public power. This Bill is not the totality of our ambition for electoral reform. Work will continue. As a first step, the First Secretary of State and the MHCLG Secretary of State have written to the Electoral Commission to review spending limits, which we believe are too high. We are establishing a cross-government task and finish team to consider threats to UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence and broader threats to political equality. I have heard all the points raised in the Chamber, and I will take those back for consideration.

A number of Peers spoke about the cap and asked why it should be retrospective. We will not allow bad actors to funnel money into our elections in advance of a change in the law. There is a clear time-critical risk of evasion of these new rules that would undermine their purpose if they were brought in at a later date. Donations made by overseas electors—I think this is the information the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was looking for—that breach the new requirements will have to be returned. Regulated transactions involving an overseas elector as a participant that breach new requirements will have to be repaid. Donations made by individuals who returned to the UK, but who were not overseas electors from 6 July 2026, that breach the new requirements will have to be returned. Regulated transactions involving an individual who has returned to the UK as a participant that breach new requirements will have to be repaid. We are removing the incentive for those who want to circumvent protections that we deem necessary. This is not about any one particular donation. These provisions were in consideration before this weekend.

The noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Evans, Lord Rennard and Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lady Hodge raised issues around party spending limits. The Secretary of State and the First Secretary State have asked the Electoral Commission to undertake a review on lowering registered political-party, third-party campaigner and candidate limits to ensure the entire electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose. In terms of timing for that, the commission has been asked to provide recommendations no later than July 2027.

Completely understandably, we have had a number of contributions on crypto assets. I will write to answer the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I will make some general comments, but I will write and answer her specific ones. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked very particular questions on this. With this ban, we need to take decisive action to defend the legitimacy and integrity of the democratic system from foreign interference. We do not want to undermine the ban. Applying the ban only after Royal Assent of the Bill would risk bad-faith actors taking advantage of the advance notice of the passage of legislation and undermining public trust in our democracy. As set out by the former Secretary of State on 25 March, any donations made to political parties in crypto assets will not be permitted under the new requirements. Recipients will have a period of 30 days following the coming into force of the provisions in the Bill to return or forfeit crypto-assets donations accepted on or after 25 March 2026, after which enforcement action can be taken and failure to comply will risk criminal liability.

There have been a number of comments around think tanks. This has been a really important issue, both debated here today and in the discussions on this Bill outside. Today we have heard contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Brady, and my noble friends Lord Wills, Lord Evans of Sealand, Lady Royall, Lady Hodge and Lady Goudie. Electoral law already covers think tanks that donate or spend during regulated election periods. Our reforms will ensure that only those with a genuine UK connection can contribute to our democracy—for instance, requiring recipients to undertake know your donor due diligence to guard against illegitimate foreign funding. The Rycroft review identified broader risks of foreign financial influence across the political system, including the potential for existing arrangements to be exploited, rather than risks specific to any one type of organisation. Our reforms are designed to address those system-wide vulnerabilities, but we are continuing to think about the issues around think tanks.

We heard many points about the consolidation of electoral law. I understand the issue, particularly after listening—not in the Chamber—to my noble friend Lord Shamash setting out how broad the spectrum of electoral law is. We also heard comments from the noble Lords, Lord Evans, Lord Jamieson, Lord Fuller, Lord Norton, Lord Shamash and Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. We understand the calls for consolidation of electoral law. Of course, major reform would take very careful consideration and an extensive amount of time. The Government’s immediate priority is the implementation of our manifesto commitment. A full-scale consolidation and simplification would need an in-depth review and modernisation alongside consolidation, which would be the job of more than one Parliament to achieve.

The Government have an ambitious agenda to improve our elections, including giving 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote and strengthening the rules around donations. We are focused on delivering that agenda via the Bill. However, we are cognisant of the challenges facing election teams. As the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said, we are taking a tiny step towards consolidation with the forms issue, and we will continue to look at areas that can help modernise and improve the electoral process and delivery.

We heard many comments—some formulated as questions—on young people voting at 16 and 17, and rightly so. There is a lot of support for this around the Chamber, although I appreciate that it is not universal. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, asked us to look at the Australian preparation for elections. I am very happy to look wherever we can for information about that. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, meant to say that voting can damage our health. I do not know whether that is a new Tory strapline, but I do not think we will be picking that one up.

The noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, spoke about votes at 16 improving voter turnout in Scotland. The noble Baronesses, Lady Leaman, Lady Foster, and Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, spoke about voting at 16 and 17, as did many other Peers. The important question is not what else you can or cannot do at 16 but whether 16 is the right age to be able to vote, and our Government are clear that the answer to that question is yes. Sixteen is the right age to be able to exercise your democratic right. Extending the vote will allow 16 and 17 year-olds to have a say in the government who shape their future and set them up for lifelong engagement in democracy. Sixteen and 17 year-olds have views that deserve to be represented, as my 16 year-old grandson is always telling me. As we have heard from the experiences in Scotland, engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.

The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, tried to press me on scientific evidence in favour of 16 and 17 year-olds not being able to vote. I say to the noble Lord that we do not give people the vote based on their intellectual or cognitive abilities, and that applies to 16 and 17 year-olds—as it does to all our voters.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Bailey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall, Lady Prashar, Lady Thornhill, and Lady Deech, asked the very important question about the steps being taken to support young people’s voter education, which goes right to the heart of the previous question. My noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Watson referred to the APPG’s work on citizenship education, which I commend. We want to break down barriers and drive participation. We know that education and engagement are a crucial part of implementing this policy. It is vital that young people understand and value democratic processes and feel they are relevant to them. We want to ensure that democracy education reinforces the importance and value of participating and inspires greater democratic engagement, and we want that to start at 16 and continue into adulthood. We are working with the Electoral Commission, the devolved Governments and civil society to consider what additional measures we can take to support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical voter and civic education, and our colleagues in the Department for Education are looking at this in terms of curriculum.

There were some important questions about addressing online abuse, particularly abuse targeted at female politicians and candidates. We all need to address online abuse as a matter of urgency. The noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Goudie, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, mentioned this: the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, mentioned in particular Ann Widdecombe. We have had a number of attacks on elected politicians that make us focus our minds again, but hundreds of other attacks go on around the country. This is a top priority.

The Online Safety Act placed a legal requirement on all tech platforms to proactively tackle the most harmful illegal content, much of which disproportionately affects women and girls. This includes harassment, sexual exploitation, stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, extreme pornography, and intimate image abuse. We have implemented the new measures in the Online Safety Act and, going further still, we have criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes—building on existing offences—criminalising sharing or threatening to share such content. We have made this offence a priority under the Online Safety Act. We need to continue our efforts in that regard to make sure that this does not have a place in our political dialogue.

There were some questions around AI-generated misinformation and disinformation. Illegal AI-generated content is already regulated under the Online Safety Act, as I said. A range of legislative offences apply to deepfakes and misinformation and disinformation in this context, including the false communications offence, which makes it illegal to knowingly spread false information with intent to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm.

I have a number of comments on bank cards and whether they undermine the security of the policy. Our understanding is that the policy will remain secure and that this use of bank cards does not undermine it. We are limiting the policy so that only cards from UK-regulated issuers can be used. That is because the UK is recognised having one of the strongest systems in the world for stopping money laundering and terrorist financing, so this safeguard will ensure a high level of security. We are also limiting the policy to cards that have a visible expiration date and require that this date has not elapsed. As bank cards are a non-photographic form of ID, it makes sense that they need to be in date to maintain security and integrity. Although bank cards do not bear photographs, we believe that this is a sufficient and appropriate level of security. The change will ensure that more legitimate electors are able to meet the voter ID requirements and will not be denied their right to vote.

The last thing I will have time to cover is the national commission on electoral reform, which a number of noble Lords asked about. I understand the push for that. The Government’s priority is a politics that works for all people. The Prime Minister has been clear on his commitment to bring about a new voting system and he welcomes a national debate about this. But this Bill is not the place to legislate for that debate. We have to get these measures over the line for our 16 and 17 year-olds to vote at the next election and to curb foreign influence in our democracy. Our Prime Minister is open to different ways of having a debate about how we can better include everyone’s vote and voice, and we will set out a path on that in due course. I look forward to those discussions.

I did not think I would be able to respond to all the points that were made, and I did not. I will respond to noble Lords in writing where I have not got to them. This Bill is a significant and necessary step in renewing the foundations of our democracy. Of course the Government recognise that this House will rightly wish to probe these matters in detail. We will continue to engage constructively as the Bill progresses, and I look forward to the further scrutiny and debate that will follow in Committee.

My noble friend Lord Evans of Sealand mentioned our Prime Minister’s wish for a national conversation about democracy. As I said, I welcome that and look forward to it. But the principle is clear: our democracy works best when it is trusted, secure and open to all those entitled to take part. That is what this Bill seeks to achieve, and it is in that spirit that I commend this Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 19, Schedule 2, Clauses 20 to 49, Schedule 3, Clauses 50 to 53, Schedule 4, Clause 54, Schedule 5, Clauses 55 and 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 and 58, Schedule 7, Clauses 59 and 60, Schedule 8, Clause 61, Schedules 9 and 10, Clause 62, Schedules 11 and 12, Clause 63, Schedule 13, Clauses 64 and 65, Schedule 14, Clauses 66 to 69, Schedule 15, Clauses 70 to 74, Schedule 16, Clause 75, Schedule 17, Clauses 76 to 91, Title.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, conscious of the time, I will very briefly say only that I fully agree with both noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Hayward. Were what is being proposed what we were used to having, we would think, of course, it is completely obvious that we would never abolish the provision of such straightforward information that would help us do our job better, so I very much commend the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment that my noble friend has tabled seeks information on the amendments debated in the Commons, so I thought it would be helpful to the House if I set out the scrutiny that the Bill had in the House of Commons.

The Bill had its Second Reading in the House of Commons on Monday 2 March. The House of Commons then ordered that the Bill should be committed to a Public Bill Committee. The Public Bill Committee itself decided on its sitting pattern. The Committee completed its scrutiny in nine sittings over five days. As usual, all clauses and schedules were considered, as were all proposed amendments and new clauses that were selected by the chair. Report took place on Wednesday 2 September. The House of Commons ordered that consideration should conclude no later than five hours after it commenced. All proposed amendments and new clauses selected by the chair were considered.

I have no doubt that noble Lords will add to the work of the Commons with their usual high-quality scrutiny. There will, I am sure, be time to debate all the issues that noble Lords raised in detail as the Bill progresses through the House.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, but let us get this absolutely clear: the Committee in the Commons did not discuss the stuff that was dumped in the Bill after the programme Motion on Report. The Committee did not know about it. The reality is—noble Lords can read Commons Hansard; it is there for them to read—that 15 new clauses and six schedules, occupying 72 columns of Hansard, were approved on the nod. They were not discussed. What is more, they were all government amendments, because the programme Motion means that only the government ones are passed on the nod: the ones in the names of opposition or individual Members disappear.

The programme Motion is designed to secure the Government’s business, and quite right too. I was there at the beginning, in 1997, when we introduced the idea of guillotining every Bill, but it has got out of hand because they are too close, too tight. More Bills are being pushed through, and we are now ending up with unscrutinised legislation, and that is not good legislation. I beg leave to withdraw.

Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for managing this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, and all noble Lords who have contributed so constructively. How we bury our dead is a hugely important issue, but one which is too often overlooked or which people feel uncomfortable talking about. It should not be so.

Edmund Burke said that society is a partnership of the dead, the living and the unborn. It is only right that we can lay our loved ones to rest with dignity, and therefore right that local authorities make the necessary provisions for burial space. Just last month, it was reported that 17 local authorities in London will run out of space by 2040, and Camden, Hackney and Tower Hamlets already have. So, as the noble Lord says, there is a need for this timely Bill, which promises to address a gap in our planning framework to ensure that these issues are addressed. We look forward to its progress in the other place.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for bringing this very important matter to us through this timely Private Member’s Bill, which helpfully coincided with the publication of a new National Planning Policy Framework. It remains the Government’s position that local matters, such as burial space, are best addressed in local plans rather than legislation, so that local planning authorities retain the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of their areas and the needs of their local communities. I appreciate the comments from my noble friend Lord Stansgate on this.

Some of the events we heard about the other day in the Chamber—genuinely shocking events that took place—highlighted that this is an issue where, although local authorities play a key part, there may be further work that government can do in terms of regulation and so on. I echo the thoughts expressed in the Chamber to the families of those affected by that recent scandal.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets the policy expectations for what should be considered in local plans and in decision-making. I am pleased to update the House that the new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August. The definition of “community facilities” in the NPPF has been updated explicitly to include cemeteries and burial grounds, in recognition of concerns raised that these local assets have not been sufficiently recognised in national planning policy. This means that all relevant policies in the NPPF relating to community facilities also apply to cemeteries and burial grounds. This includes that development plans should be informed by an understanding of any existing deficits and additional requirements expected in the availability of community facilities and, where appropriate, should allocate land specifically for community facilities. That applies to local authorities in London as well, of course.

I hope that the recent changes made to the NPPF provide reassurance to the noble Lord that the concerns he has raised have been carefully considered. They were extremely important and are now reflected more clearly in national planning policy.

Home Owners and Home Ownership

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for securing this important debate. I also thank her for her enormous contribution to local government over many years. I very much remember her tenure in the Local Government Association, and I thank her for that. I also extend my gratitude to all speakers for their very valuable contributions to this important discussion. As ever, the House has brought a wealth of experience and perspective to an issue that matters deeply to people across this country.

The Motion before us is broad, and that is appropriate. Home ownership cannot be separated from wider questions around housing supply, affordability, economic opportunity or community; it is bound up with all of them. For generations, owning a home has represented something important: stability and independence. It has given families a stake in their community and confidence in their future. For many people, it remains one of the clearest expressions of aspiration and security. The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, spoke powerfully about roots, belonging, aspiration and security. That aspiration is still very much alive; the challenge is that, for too many people, the pathway to achieving it has become increasingly difficult. It would be wrong to pretend otherwise.

I am sorry but I am not prepared to absolve the party opposite from the legacy of the worst housing crisis for generations, which was our legacy when we came into office. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, many of the themes raised during this debate reflect pressures that have been building over decades: house prices have outpaced earnings, saving for a deposit has become more difficult, and housing supply has failed to keep pace with need. For many across the country, people who work hard and do the right thing nevertheless find themselves unable to take the next step towards home ownership.

The consequence is that too many people feel that opportunities available to previous generations are becoming harder to reach. That matters not only to individual households but society as a whole. A strong housing market should allow people to move through different stages of life. It should allow young people to leave home and establish themselves, renters to buy if they wish to do so, growing families to find homes that meet their needs, and older people to move when that is the right choice for them. That is why the Government see housing as both a social and economic priority.

Housing is about more than bricks and mortar. It affects productivity, labour mobility, health, community cohesion and opportunity. It shapes people’s confidence in the future, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the debate about home ownership. My noble friend Lady Paul clearly articulated some of those issues.

This Government want a country in which more people have a genuine choice about where and how they live. We want a housing market that works better than it has in recent years and a fairer system in which opportunities are not determined solely by geography, wealth or family circumstance. That requires a long-term approach, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, rightly diagnosed. There are no quick fixes to challenges that have developed over many years, nor is there a single policy lever capable of solving them. Instead, progress depends on addressing the fundamentals.

It means increasing the supply of homes, because we cannot tackle a housing shortage without building more homes. That is why we have taken urgent action through bold planning reforms—which was recognised by my noble friend Lady Gill and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—and a record £39 billion investment to kick-start social and affordable housebuilding at scale across the country. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I say that it is not the case that all social and affordable housing is occupied by those on benefits. Many occupiers of social and affordable housing are working people who continue to contribute to communities, in the same way that, in my town, when I was growing up, the majority of homes were council housing and they developed an entire community from that housing.

We need to increase the supply of homes, so we have also launched the £16 billion National Housing Bank to unlock private capital, support delivery on large and complex sites and accelerate the construction of new homes across the country. Together, these measures are designed to address the root cause of many of the challenges discussed today: the simple fact that, for too long, we have not built enough homes. It also means ensuring that aspiring home owners have realistic routes into ownership. That is why we are supporting first-time buyers through a range of measures, including shared ownership and reforms to mortgage lending that will help more people access suitable mortgage products. We have also consulted on a new first-time buyer savings product to replace the lifetime ISA, and that means making the experience of buying and owning a home simpler and fairer.

That is why, on 19 June, we published a road map setting out actions the Government will take over the course of this Parliament to reform the home buying and selling process. I am very grateful to the cross-sector partners who have worked with me to deliver this. At a time when families are feeling the squeeze, these changes will cut home-buying times by around four weeks, save first-time buyers an average of £650 and stop the nasty surprises in the house-buying process that cost time, money and heartbreak. Overall, first-time buyers are set to save a total of more than £200 million a year from these reforms.

Finally, it means recognising that housing policy must work for existing home owners as well as future ones. That is why we are taking action to improve the experience of home ownership itself. The King’s Speech confirmed that the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will be introduced this Session, delivering long-overdue reforms for millions of leaseholders and helping to make commonhold the default tenure for new flats. At the same time, we remain committed to ensuring that people are safe in their homes, accelerating the remediation of unsafe buildings and removing barriers that prevent vital works being completed. Our aim is to create a system that offers more choice, more opportunity and greater security for people at every stage of life. Whether you are taking your first step towards ownership, moving to meet the needs of a growing family or considering a move later in life, everyone should have confidence that the housing system is working for them.

Throughout today’s debate, there has been a common thread running through many contributions, regardless of political perspective, and that is a recognition that home ownership remains important. There may be different views on precisely how to expand access to it; there may be disagreements about individual policies or interventions; but I suspect there is broad agreement across this House that we should be striving for a society in which people have a realistic opportunity of buying a home if that is what they choose to do. In fact, I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said in this respect; we cannot just keep doing what we did when it has not worked.

That is certainly this Government’s ambition. We want aspiring home owners to feel that this ladder is once again within reach. We want existing home owners to have confidence that the system works fairly. We want future generations to look ahead with optimism, rather than resignation. Achieving that ambition will take time. The barriers facing many households today were not created overnight. We have to take sustained action with our partners across the sector.

I will address some of the issues that were raised individually by noble Lords, but I am sure I will not get to them all. I will respond in writing where I do not reach any particular issue. I appreciate that there were different approaches on these issues, so I will set out our government view.

First, I want to talk about first-time buyers. This was an issue mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton, Lady Gill, Lady Seccombe and Lady Hodgson. In addition to increasing the supply of homes for all tenures, the Government are supporting people into home ownership, including through the shared ownership scheme and the lifetime ISA. On first-time buyers, I want to tackle the stamp duty myth. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, and the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, all spoke about stamp duty from slightly different perspectives. 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. From noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, I keep hearing about all this money they are going to spend from what they are taking out of the welfare bill, stamp duty being yet another one of those—following on from defence, tax cuts and so forth. I wait to hear which part of the welfare bill that is coming from, and I look forward to those discussions later.

The Government have also introduced a new permanent mortgage guarantee scheme to support and sustain the availability of low-deposit mortgage products for prospective buyers. The Bank of England has eased the loan-to-income limit. My noble friend Lord John mentioned the need for flexibility on finance, and he is quite right. The Financial Conduct Authority has an ongoing review of the mortgage market, which means many borrowers can now borrow 10% more towards a property purchase, and I commend Lloyds and Santander, both of which have reintroduced their 5% mortgage deposits. In June, the FCA published proposed new mortgage rules to support first-time buyers and underserved customers, including wider access to interest-only mortgages and greater flexibility for borrowers on variable and non-traditional incomes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Paul, mentioned some of the great examples that building societies are taking up. I really commend the Building Societies Association on its “Think again” campaign. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, mentioned an example of someone who did not think they would be able to buy and could—that is what the “Think again” campaign is looking at. There is a much more flexible consideration now around, for example, fluctuating income levels and taking payment of rent into consideration as a guarantee of mortgage payments.

A number of noble Peers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton, Lady Hodgson, Lady Paul and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, mentioned supply and the 1.5 million homes. We inherited this acute housing crisis after decades of not building enough homes. That is why the Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes this Parliament. I do not apologise for the ambition of that target. We are pulling every lever at our disposal. We have taken urgent action through bold planning reforms and a record £39 billion investment to kick-start social and affordable housing at scale across the country. We have launched the National Housing Bank, unlocking over £53 billion of private investment, as well as our programme of new towns—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for all the work he has done on that programme. Our interventions are showing positive signs of change, with new-build starts in March 2026 up 15% on the previous year and residents in outline applications up 54%. That mission signals our commitment to the country and to the market that we are serious about solving the housing crisis and ending this ingrained break on aspiration. It was always the case that we were going to have to take some time to put these steps in place before we started to see the outcome that we are looking for.

A number of noble Lords raised the issue of planning reforms: the noble Baronesses, Lady Gill, Lady Hodgson and Lady Paul, and the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Frost and Lord Jamieson. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Jackson, for their support for the planning reforms—it is good to hear that. This has been a very important step: a set of pro-supply, pro-growth planning reforms to support our commitment to build those 1.5 million homes. The changes we have introduced to the National Planning Policy Framework involve a wider set of growth-focused interventions that will help us build the homes in places people want to live, but also supported by the right infrastructure that needs to go alongside it. The new NPPF confirms those reforms to make planning policy easier to use.

To specifically answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, about well-connected stations, there is a definition of that in the National Planning Policy Framework, and I think I am meeting the noble Lord, Lord Banner, next week to discuss that further.

We are building on our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act, a major step in the reform programme to unlock a new scale of housing delivery, especially focusing on the right type of housing, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.

Noble Lords raised the issues around right-to-buy reforms. We are reforming right to buy to deliver a fairer, better value and more sustainable scheme. We want a scheme that helps long-standing tenants to buy their own homes, while protecting much-needed social housing stock and ensuring that more homes are built to last. As my noble friend Lady Paul said in her thoughtful and analytical speech, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for too long, social homes have been sold off without being replaced. That is why we have already acted to reduce maximum right-to-buy cash discounts to their pre-2012 levels. The Bill will implement more comprehensive reforms to right to buy, including minimum tenancy requirements and allowing councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. This is an important move which will enable the building of much-needed council homes, and it is something that councils have called for for a long time.

A number of noble Lords raised issues about London. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, spoke about the complexity of building in London, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lords, Lord Frost, Lord Jackson, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson. In March, the Government and the Greater London Authority confirmed a package of temporary emergency measures providing targeted, time-limited support for housebuilders, to improve the viability of schemes and get quicker approvals on new housing schemes across every borough. That includes the GLA’s fast-track planning process for sites with at least 20% affordable housing, removal of guidance that constrains density, expansion of the mayor’s planning powers, temporary partial relief from development levies and £324 million for the GLA to establish the City Hall developer investment fund to unlock stalled sites and increase supply.

We are backing London with a major long-term investment, with up to £11.7 billion from the social and affordable housing programme confirmed for London over the lifetime of the programme, and an allocation of £1.5 billion of the new low-interest loan scheme for social and affordable housing. I am very aware that we need to give some assistance to London to deliver the housing it needs.

The Renters’ Rights Act was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lords, Lord John and Lord Jamieson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who mysteriously called it a war on renters. I think it was actually a big support for renters. It is transforming the experience of private renting for the 11 million private renters and 2.3 million landlords in England, delivering our manifesto commitment to end Section 21 no-fault evictions, which were an enormous cause of homelessness in this country. Tenants also have stronger protections against unfair practices. The Act also prevents landlords from demanding excessive amounts of rent in advance and helps remove barriers that can prevent renters from accessing accommodation. I am very proud of the Renters’ Rights Act. It is going to deliver much greater security of tenure for renters, and we do not expect those reforms to have a destabilising effect on the supply of rented homes and the rental market. So far, that has proved to be the case.

I will comment briefly on the support we are giving to SME builders, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, mentioned. She also mentioned rural homes; we have specific policies around making sure we have rural exception sites, to make sure that local people can think about what homes they need in their local areas. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, also mentioned that issue, on SMEs.

There is a package of financial support for SMEs. We will unlock £53 billion of private investment through the National Housing Bank and support the building of over 500,000 new homes, including supporting SME housebuilders. We have also doubled the ENABLE Build guarantee scheme to £2 billion to increase SMEs’ access to finance. We recognise the challenge SMEs have in accessing suitable land and, to support them, Homes England has committed to sell more of its sites through SME-only sales, with a less bureaucratic sales process to help level the playing field.

I will respond in writing to other issues that I have not got to.

Lastly, a number of noble Peers raised shared ownership, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Gill, Lady O’Neill and Lady Paul, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. Shared ownership continues to have an important role to play in supporting households. However, the Government are aware that some people who entered the shared ownership process have faced challenges. As many noble Lords will know, this was recently discussed on Report of the Social Housing Bill. As I set out in that debate, we have a programme of improvements in place to make shared ownership work better for customers, but there is more to come in the improvement programme. We are continuing to consider what more can be done to improve our customer experience for shared owners. My right honourable friend the Housing Minister is in discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Young, on many of those issues.

There are no quick fixes to these housing issues. The barriers to home ownership were not built in a single Parliament, and they will not fall in a single Parliament. But the direction is settled: building the homes the country needs, opening the route to a deposit and a mortgage, rebalancing the market towards people who want somewhere to live and making ownership secure for those who already have it. I am proud that Labour has picked up the challenge of tackling the housing crisis we inherited from the previous Government. To pick up the analogy from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, we grabbed that knife that was falling and turned it into steel for building. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for giving this House the opportunity to debate this issue.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I just clarify a couple of things? First, there was a lot of discussion on planning and there was some recognition that some of the things in the NPPF—not necessarily all—are positive. The biggest issue now is not just getting planning permission but the viability of the site. The Minister did not address that issue, other than mentioning a temporary measure in London. If it is not viable to build in London, then it is not viable not just on a temporary basis. Will the Government consider extending that? What else will they do, as I mentioned in my contribution, to make sites viable, possibly by reducing these levies and regulations on sites?

Secondly, if the Minister wishes me to share with her the full calculations of how we would fund the stamp duty cut, then I would be happy to do so.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we continue to have active discussions with the sector on viability. There are elements in the National Policy Planning Framework that look at that, and we continue to debate this very important issue. The immediate crisis was in London, and we worked with the mayor and his team to introduce measures that we hope will help with that. Homes England is looking at it as well, so we continue to explore that.

We have to be careful about broad statements about how we are going to cut away at the welfare bill. It is easy to say we are going to chop the welfare bill and do this, that or the other with the money. It is when it comes to actually saying which bit of the welfare bill you are going to cut that the difficulties start to arise.

National Infrastructure Projects: Devolution

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, nationally significant infrastructure projects do what they say on the tin: they are national. No devolved powers have altered the consenting of the decision-making route for NSIPs, so no assessment of impacts has been made. Decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects remain nationally accountable, with the relevant Secretary of State taking decisions, of course following examination and recommendation by the Planning Inspectorate. Devolution supports infrastructure delivery by giving local leaders stronger tools to align housing, transport growth and supporting infrastructure.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, water companies have warned that there is enough water supply to handle only another 420,000 new homes—far fewer than the 1.5 million planned by the Government. How will the Government ensure that sufficient water infrastructure is built to keep pace with the building of new homes—homes our nation needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

This Government have instigated the building of a whole new set of reservoirs, when the party opposite did nothing on that for 14 years. We are very cognisant of the issues around water. I know that the noble Lord lives in the same part of the country that I do, where there is a water shortage. The way to tackle this is through the delivery of the infrastructure that will support the housing delivery, which is exactly what we are setting about to do, making sure that, where decisions are taken nationally, they have local input so that the national decision-maker can take account of local circumstances.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Will the Minister raise with her Treasury colleagues the perverse way in which the funding of infrastructure projects in England that should generate Barnett consequential payments to Wales fails to do so? For example, the Oxford to Cambridge rail project was designated as being directly beneficial to Wales and so avoided any appropriate Barnett payment. Please can this system be reviewed to avoid such ludicrous situations?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not want to comment specifically on the issues around the Oxford-Cambridge rail link, but that part of the country generates wealth that benefits not only England but the devolved Administrations. So, if the wealth that is generated is shared across the United Kingdom, that would be the case. However, I will respond in more detail to the question on the Barnett formula.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister responded to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, she referred to local leaders. Can she confirm that the reference to “local leaders” is to city and county mayors? If so, where do local councils and local people fit into the decision-making on what could be very disruptive and important infrastructure in their areas?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Devolution and infrastructure reform definitely do not remove the role of local communities. For NSIPs, communities and local authorities continue to have opportunities to engage with projects and participate in the examination process. The Government continue to expect applicants for NSIPs, as well as local planning, to undertake meaningful and proportionate engagement. The reforms are about making engagement more effective, not removing it. The aim is to focus consultation on the issues that matter, avoid unnecessary process, and support better quality applications and decisions.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, West Mercia has a police commissioner but no mayor. That area of Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin—where I used to be the leader—Herefordshire and Worcestershire is known as a devolution desert. What is the Government’s plan for that particular area? Will we get a mayor or are we to carry on as we have for years?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am always very keen to hear the enthusiasm of friends in Shropshire for the devolution programme, which is moving ahead at pace. Achieving good growth in this country requires a fundamental rewiring of the way the country works and making sure that power that has been held in Westminster and Whitehall is returned to the people and the places where they live, work and invest. This Government’s ambition is to ensure that every area in England, including Shropshire, has or is in the process of establishing a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with strategic authorities in place everywhere by the end of 2028.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Anglian Water has raised objections to a planning application in a specific area of water stress. As matters currently stand, water companies are not statutory consultees and are deemed to have to make the connection even if the connection is unsafe. Would the Minister look favourably on water companies becoming statutory consultees to prevent this situation happening, where there could be a sewage spill in these circumstances that could be avoided were they statutory consultees?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have tried to avoid increasing the list of statutory consultees because it affects the process. However, any authority can contribute to the planning process; I know that the noble Baroness is aware of that. We would expect local water authorities, where they consider that there will be a problem, to contribute both to an NSIP application or to a local planning authority application.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, there is hard evidence—we have just had a Conservative speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Thank you. As I was saying, we know that infrastructure development in this country is more expensive than in many other developed countries and takes longer, mainly due to our planning system and the way that regulators in this country are risk-averse and often work in silos. Can my noble friend explain what the Government are doing further to the Planning and Infrastructure Act to improve this?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We now have the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which removes some of the obstacles that were causing delays in the planning system, but we have also recently republished the National Planning Policy Framework. It is now a much more straightforward, rules-based system of planning which we hope will make the planning system run more smoothly while removing some of the jeopardy around JRs and so on in the planning system. That, alongside investment in planning officers and the planning system, will make a real difference.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, in January, the Government announced plans to allow data centres to opt in to the nationally significant infrastructure projects scheme. What are the Government doing to promote innovation in this area to increase their reliance on grey water rather than drinking water and the use of closed-loop cooling systems?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Data centres are a useful example of why the planning system needs flexibility. Some data centres will go through the local planning routes and some will be NSIPs because of their scale, power requirements, economic role or resilience applications. The noble Baroness makes a very valid point around how we use grey water and so on, and how we can use the heat output from data centres for use in residential or commercial applications.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I worked at No. 10 some 20 years ago, when the decision was made in principle to build a national high-speed rail network in the UK. As we know, that network now goes just from Birmingham to Euston, is not yet open and is 140 miles long. At exactly the same time that that decision was made, the Chinese started building their high-speed rail network. Twenty years later, it is 31,000 miles long. What conclusion does the Minister draw from that?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will not make any points about the nature of Governments that can move without fear of having to be re-elected, but we have to get better at this. That is why all this work has been done since our Government came into power to make sure that we improve both infrastructure planning and the process for delivering infrastructure. We need not only to get the planning system working more smoothly but to have far better ways of making sure that the project management of these schemes is working effectively and smoothly. The first step is to get these things through planning without having years and years of hold-ups in the courts and elsewhere.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, are we any closer in this country to setting up a national water grid? Obviously, every reservoir that is in the planning process will be a national infrastructure project and they all give rise to a huge amount of opposition, understandably. Can we look again at the idea of a national grid?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I know that my colleagues in Defra are working extremely hard on the whole issue of water provision: how do we save water when we have floods and lots of rain; how do we make sure that we have the means to do that; and how do we distribute that water better around the country? I know that the water taskforce will look at this and making sure that we work together across the planning system and the water delivery system to make this work better in the future.

Local Government Reorganisation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Statement is as follows:

“This Government are committed to delivering good growth across the country and power in every postcode, with places able to set their own ambitions and integrate services to meet people’s needs. Achieving that requires a fundamental rewiring of the state, giving power held in Whitehall back to the people and the places where they live and work. As we set out in the Cabinet statement on rewiring the state, effective and sustainable local government is the vital foundation of our devolution ambitions.

As we are now determined more than ever to devolve power closer to the people we represent, it is only right that, as the new Secretary of State, I make sure that everything we do is working towards that plan to change Britain without delay. The Prime Minister told the House last week that he was

‘prepared to look at local government reorganisation’.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/9/26; col. 65.]

and he asked me, as his Communities Secretary, to do that. Throughout this process, the Government have listened to representations from Members of this House, councils and the public, and I want to be clear how critical this is to me, given their importance to our democracy and the services they provide for local people. But there will always be a wide range of divergent views, which means that achieving perfect consensus will never be possible.

I understand that feelings run high and people naturally have strong views in different directions. In that context, and in the light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself, first, that the right process is in place, that it is robust and, of course, that it complies with the law. Secondly, I want to fully test whether our proposals for local government reorganisation meet the priorities of the new Administration and the new Prime Minister, and any additional considerations.

With those two considerations in mind, I have decided to withdraw the decisions made in March this year for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk, and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitary authorities. The Government’s legal representatives have notified the court of this step. I have also decided to conduct a full review of the local government reorganisation programme, including the decisions that were announced in July this year for a further 14 areas, and the two areas where decisions have not yet been taken, and I ask that reorganisation activity be paused. These 14 areas are Derbyshire, Devon, East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, and, where relevant, their neighbouring unitaries.

I do not take this lightly. I recognise the huge amount of work that has already gone into progressing reorganisation in each of these areas, and I am very grateful for it. I know that many Members of the House and many council leaders outside the House will have lots of questions about what this means for them and their communities, and I will try to address these as best I can today.

First, we are working across Government on rewiring the state following the Cabinet statement. We recognise that effective and sustainable local government is fundamental to our ambitions for a devolved country that works better for and with communities. We will consider this issue as part of our wider approach.

Secondly, as an immediate step, I have asked the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth to undertake a rapid review of the current local government reorganisation programme, including the position in the four areas where we have withdrawn and the further 14 areas that we are reviewing and pausing, alongside the two remaining areas. The new councils for East Surrey and West Surrey will be unaffected because they are already established in law, have had their first elections and are on track to go live in April 2027.

Thirdly, I want to be clear about what this means for elections scheduled for next May. Elections will go ahead in May 2027 on existing council boundaries.

Fourthly and finally, my department will provide support to council leaders, officers and Members representing impacted areas, and the Minister for Local Government has written to leaders and copied in Members of this House.

I want to ensure that all those who represent these areas feel included in considering their future, and I will update the House at the earliest opportunity. My ministerial team and senior civil servants from the department are ready to discuss and to work with those representatives. My team will proactively reach out to discuss the local implications in detail. My department remains committed to working in partnership with local government, both in this immediate period and in the longer term. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Minister!

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have to deal with the Front Benchers first, although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his enthusiasm. I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their comments, and I understand the frustration that has been expressed.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked about updated legal advice, government priorities and the fact that, in June, we said we were fully committed to the timetable. It is important that we do not conflate the timetable with the commitment to LGR. As I said, there has been additional legal advice, but we also have a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State. In view of both those things, it is only right that we take a step back and have a look at these issues; it would not be right to not do so.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, spoke about elections being postponed, the time and money that has been spent, and improving services and financial gain. The Government’s vision is still that local government reorganisation will go ahead; we are not stepping back from that in any way whatever. This afternoon, my right honourable friend in the House of Commons stated many times, specifically, that our intention is not to row back from local government reorganisation. We see that as a way of improving services, generating the growth we all want to see, and making much more efficient use of the finances that go into local government. The work that has gone in already, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is certainly not wasted, because we are not scrapping the LGR process; we are taking a step back to have a look at it, but we are not scrapping the process.

The noble Baroness asked about the cost of the review and the uncertainty. The uncertainty caused by legal uncertainty is not tenable. The programme that we are setting in place will probably last for at least 50 years and maybe longer—the last local government reorganisation did—and it is very important that it is built on a firm foundation of legal certainty. Otherwise, our colleagues, not just in local government but their partners in business and the third sector, will be facing that uncertainty going way forward into the future. We need to make sure that we have the certainty we need.

I still stick by what I said when we debated the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: this is the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall. That is why it will never be straightforward or easy to do. It is a dramatic change to the way the state is wired, and the Prime Minister wants to see that happen. We want to get powers and funding out of Whitehall—I think there was not much disagreement to that in the Chamber when we debated the English Devolution Bill—and, to do that, we need a firm foundation of local government to build on.

The other question the noble Baroness asked was around the Prime Minister’s commitment and the long-term vision. I do not think you could have a stronger advocate for promoting devolution than our Prime Minister. He lived and breathed devolution and the devolution agenda during the time he was Mayor of Manchester. He genuinely believes in the transfer of power to every postcode in the country and he has set out very clearly that he has a long-term vision for this country to do just that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about top-down reorganisation. This absolutely was not that. I have sat through many meetings with our local government colleagues, who came forward with their own proposals. They did not always agree in each area and it was sometimes very difficult to work through the different options that they came forward with. It will continue to be so, as they can once again put forward their views—some of them very strongly held, as the noble Baroness is aware—as we go through this review process. The process is certainly not confined to the waste-bin, as the noble Baroness put it; it is still very firmly on the table to be worked on, and I look forward to working with our colleagues in local government as we go forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the assurance that decisions for those areas where we had not taken decisions already would be made in October. We are going to work as quickly as we possibly can on this review. My right honourable colleague the Secretary of State referred many times this afternoon to the fact that she wants this review to proceed at pace. This is not being kicked into the long grass or anything like it. She wants that to move forward as quickly as possible, so we can provide the certainty that local government needs.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned legal advice. We considered the legal advice provided as part of the judicial review process and the decision to withdraw the four decisions reflects that legal advice. It is a long-standing principle, as she will know only too well, that Governments do not publish or comment on legal advice. The legal powers for local government reorganisation remain valid. There are no court findings against the Government. We want to be able to review the decisions, so that the Secretary of State can reassure herself and the Prime Minister that they are the right ones. Respecting the court process means that the way to do this is to withdraw those and consider the programme afresh.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also asked when councils were informed. They were told today. The legal advice was considered over the weekend and the Secretary of State informed the councils involved today: the 14 that were going to be paused and reviewed and the four that have been withdrawn from the court process.

The Secretary of State received many questions on financial provision this afternoon. The Government were putting forward some £63 million to help councils through the transition phase of local government, and she will consider the issues around funding as we go through the review process.

I turn to the elections next year. Elections will be held according to the usual boundary elections, so if a council was up for election by thirds next year, that will happen, and if it is the election of a full council, that will happen. From talking to councils in my local area, I can say that they are all very keen on the process of LGR going forward and they look forward to this. They know that the process is coming. They know that it is paused and not stopped, so they will continue to work with their local parties and local councils, as they have done so well in the past.

On the importance and relevance of council size, we have always said that council sizes were not fixed. Having gone through all the applications myself, it was clear that you cannot make a fixed point in terms of size. You have to look at each area individually. Geographies and demographics are different, and it is very important that each area is considered separately, according to its needs.

On the issue of historic communities and all the other issues, this pause will give the opportunity for people who had those strong views to put them forward again in the review process. I am sure they will do that. Nobody is backward in coming forward in this process and I look forward to hearing from many of them. But the right thing to do at the moment is take this short pause, particularly in respect of the legal advice and the wish of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to review this, so that, when we go forward, it will be with the certainty that everybody in local government needs.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, first, the un-cancellation of local government elections and now the embarrassment of this one, from a hapless MHCLG. Back in April, when your Lordships debated local government reorganisation, I characterised the proposals for Norfolk as a cut-and-shut job that would shame Arthur Daley. It would create England’s poorest council in east Norfolk and throw up in the air the authorities responsible for homelessness, housing, economic growth and planning. No wonder we challenged it. Today, the leader of my council tells me that the Government will refund our legal costs, well into six figures. Can the Minister tell us quite how much money the Government will be refunding to councils across the country to reimburse them for challenging decisions which we now conclude were unlawful and should never have been taken in the first place?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The strength of the representations of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on this matter shows the differing opinions that we have seen throughout this process. There are strongly held, different views on all sides, and it is important that we continue to take those into account as we go through the review process.

First, as I should have emphasised more when I was speaking earlier, I recognise the amount of work that councils have already put into preparing for reorganisation. As I said, this work will not be wasted, but I appreciate that it comes with a cost. Financial commitments may have been made, and we will look at this as part of the review.

I have already spoken about transition costs. The overall costs of reorganisation are of course to be taken into account, but we also know that reorganisation can save money. There has been a £90 million saving in North Yorkshire and £75 million in Buckinghamshire since their unitaries were established. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, saved money when she reorganised Wiltshire into a unitary.

There are also associated legal costs. LGR is often contested in the courts. It is a right and proper part of our democratic system that important issues can be challenged in the court system. The Government engage legal advisers to defend those decisions whenever challenges are brought, and that brings costs with it. But the questions are so significant, and the implications so long-lasting, that the extent of legal costs should be viewed in that context. Legal costs will be determined in the usual way.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by acknowledging the hard work that my noble friend the Minister has been putting into this over the last couple of years, and the work of those councillors who have been arguing for these changes in their boroughs and counties over the last few months. I speak as someone who is entirely supportive of these proposals; they offer a much better way forward for local and regional government. I have benefited from a similar model in London for many years.

However, there have been some mixed messages today, which I ask the Minister to help with. First, both my noble friend and the Secretary of State have talked about this being a rapid review, but I also understand that officers are being told to stand down all work and elections have been postponed, which does not suggest rapidity in the review. Can my noble friend the Minister throw any light on this, and can she reassure us that devolution will happen in this Parliament and that new unitary authorities will be up and running by the time of the next general election?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his support for the overall programme. We are asking councils to pause work on progressing local government reorganisation. It will be a short pause. This means that councils should cease work on implementing previous decisions, but there are shared projects that will be useful in any potential reorganisation and of course they can be continued. We want this process to be done with good local engagement and we will listen very carefully to the views that councils provide.

As they have done throughout this process, officials will proactively engage with places and support them throughout the period. Ongoing work, for example, could include improving data quality and data sharing, mapping services, finances, workforce assets and contracts, identifying key risks and dependencies, undertaking ICT and digital discovery work, and continued engagement with partners and residents. We recognise the need to provide certainty as quickly as possible, so that areas have clarity over their future. We will work at pace on the review and report back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum. The House understands that the Government will not publish their legal advice, but are these decisions the result of specific legal advice about the nature of the decisions that were made or of changes of mind on the part of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State? Would it not be better to start a rapid review by restating or amending the criteria against which the decisions are to be made? Would that not make the decisions, ultimately, less prone to legal challenge?

Where Cambridgeshire is concerned specifically, we were told that there would be a decision in October. Is that still the case? We were also told that that would lead to elections on new boundaries in May. Presumably that is not to be the case.

Finally, on strategic spatial planning, which I know the Minister—and I and others—supports, can she say that the lack of progress on unitaries does not mean that we cannot have progress on establishing strategic planning boards?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The criteria will be looked at as part of this review process. It is important that we take account of the legal advice—we are not going to publish it—and look at the impact on the future programme; it would be unwise not to do so.

On the issues around Cambridge, the noble Lord asked me about elections. Let me start with the October decision-making. We had said to colleagues in Cambridge and Peterborough—and indeed in West Sussex, where decisions had not been taken—that we would endeavour to have decisions in October. Both those areas will go into the review process, so those decisions will now be announced alongside the other areas that are being reviewed. I hope that that will not lead to too much further delay in Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and West Sussex. Noble Lords will be aware that an important part of this process is the statutory instruments that have to go through both Houses. We were on a very tight timetable for all this anyway, so it is not likely that elections will be able to go ahead to the shadow authorities as planned in 2027. That is why we have said that elections will go ahead, but on the old boundaries.

On spatial planning, the devolution work can continue to look at planning and how that will work through in the devolution process.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, if the legal concerns were serious enough to halt the programme today, suddenly, with rapid action, can the Minister tell the House whether any similar concerns had been raised previously by officials, local authorities or external counsel? Will she place a letter in the Library with the chronology of the key decisions that led to the suspension of the programme, so that Parliament can understand how this arose?

To be a little more specific—I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is on the same page as me in this—I am not asking the Minister to disclose privileged legal advice, but can she tell the House which aspect of the process is now considered potentially unlawful? Is it the criteria, the consultation, the decision-making or the implementation? How can Parliament scrutinise ministerial decision-making if Ministers are unwilling to explain the nature of a legal defect that has caused such extensive disruption and waste of public money?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will have a look at the chronology of the decision-making and talk to colleagues about it. Clearly, as I have said, very categorically, we will not be releasing the legal advice, but I appreciate that there is a chronology that takes account of the legal advice but does not divulge what it is. As to which aspects of the programme, I fear that that would be part of the privileged advice. We will look at any issues that have been raised as part of the programme of review. We will be clear and transparent about what we are doing in the review, so I hope that it will come out as part of the review process.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

M, my noble friend has talked about this to some extent, but can she assure the House that there will not be a wholesale return to the drawing board, as it were—in other words, that all that work will not be wasted? By that, I suppose I mean: does the Government’s commitment to devolution remain as strong as it has been for the past two years? Many of us feel that power has drained from municipalities to Whitehall for probably the past 50 years; we would like some of it to start going back to municipal centres.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I can reassure my noble friend that there is no drawing back on the programme of devolution. It is a very key part not just of government policy but of the Government’s vision for the country. For too long, we have had a very centralised model in this country. Many of the people in this room have been council leaders and will have been at the sticky end of that model. We do not want a begging-bowl culture where local councils have to go to Westminster for almost anything they want, whether a small power to do something or funding for an important local project. There is no rowing back from that at all. I am sure that noble Lords have heard enough from our new Prime Minister to know that his commitment to devolution has been strengthened by the years he spent as Mayor of Manchester, not weakened or diminished in any way. I know he is keen that we get that power and funding out to every postcode in the country, so that our country can achieve the potential we know it has—in every corner of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to probe the Minister on a couple of the things she said, because I think they were a tiny bit inconsistent. The Statement says that there will be a full review and the Minister said it would be a rapid review—and she also said in one of her answers that outside organisations would be given the opportunity to contribute, implying that there will be a public consultation. If it is to be a rapid review, then I do not understand why we are having elections next year. Can the Minister give some indication to those council candidates and successful councillors the term of office they are seeking to be elected to? If it is a rapid review, arguably the decisions will be taken before the elections have even taken place. You have to give people a level of certainty. There are a lot of inconsistencies in what the Government have set out, and they need to clarify these sooner rather than later.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is possible to have both a rapid and full review. It means doing the work carefully but as quickly as possible. To create the level of certainty everybody wants to see across local government, the decision-making has to be completed quickly. The rapid review will look at the programme as a whole, and the work on the rewiring the state delivery plan must include a question about the role of local government in the devolved country. The review will be led by the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth, and it will engage with MPs and all councils impacted. An extended delay is in no one’s interest. It is right that Ministers listen to concerns and the new Administration undertake this review to make sure that local government reorganisation aligns with our priorities and work on rewiring the state.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former Norfolk MP. Judging by my mailbox this evening, there is real anger and consternation across Norfolk. A huge amount of work and professional resources have been put into this. For example, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council and Breckland District Council have spent a vast amount of money on preparing for the new unitary; that is money that could have been spent on vital services that is now down the drain. Furthermore, dozens of Norfolk County councillors took a decision not to stand last May because they trusted the Government; they stood down and many of those seats were taken by paper candidates put up by Reform UK. Morale is at rock bottom, and the chief executive of Norfolk County Council, Tom McCabe, has resigned. The Government have multiple questions to answer, and they should be ashamed of what they have done.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I have already made clear that I do not think any of the money that has been spent is wasted. The work will go ahead on local government reorganisation and on devolution. When I did the engagement meetings on this, it was really interesting to hear stories from around the country of councils, which had not spoken to each other in 20 years or more, sitting down and working together. We have really appreciated that. It has been a good way of bringing councils and councillors together to work on this jointly, and we have no intention of rowing back on it. The money spent is not down the drain, nor has it been wasted; the money will be used in the future programme.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Government’s policy in this area; it is a brave policy and one I think the Opposition parties have behaved shockingly badly about over the last few months. Today is a difficult day; I feel it is difficult as well. But it needs to be said that this Government have support for the prospect of proper devolution. How can that take place without some local government reform? The two obviously go together. It is nonsense and just not right to say there is no relationship between them—there has to be.

I want to ask my noble friend about the cities that lost out so badly during the last local government reorganisation so they have become much too small, not natural in the slightest way and incapable of managing to get the necessary funding to be able to build the even more necessary houses and generate growth. Is it still the Government’s policy to make sure that those cities—including my own city of Leicester—have that extra space and are expanded in the way that is intended?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. I do not think it is helpful for me to comment on individual areas. However, he is right to point to the focus on growth. There were three main focuses that we looked at: the potential for growth and making sure we could achieve that across the country; ensuring that the key services delivered by local government are protected and supported going forward, including those for vulnerable people; and the issue of community identity which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned.

Wherever we looked at those issues, there were different opinions in different areas, which is why we stuck very firmly to the criteria we set ourselves. The growth criteria came in the first criteria, and we looked at all of the proposals before us in respect of that. But we must not make any bones about the fact that we need to change things to get the growth we want to see. That involves making sure local government is enabled to drive that growth forward in the way it is organised, and that we have the devolution so that people who are taking decisions about growth, the economy and key services in their local areas are in that local area and have some skin in the game in relation to the decisions being taken.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, when the elections take place next year, what period will the people elected serve? Will it be one year, two years, three years or four years?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

For elections that take place next year, if the programme works through as we anticipate it will, the shadow elections will be in 2028.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect one of the main reasons why there has been a delay is that not enough attention has been given to the financial viability of these new authorities. In my own area of Hampshire, that is certainly so. I dispute the assertion that opposition parties have not been co-operative in trying to help the reorganisation, but there is an issue about the viability of the authorities. Is the question of viability the problem, or is it more likely that the Government are reluctant to put the resources in that are needed to make them viable?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

To answer the last question first, we have already made a significant financial commitment to make sure that this programme works properly. A great deal of attention was paid to the issue of financial viability as we went through the process. We need to make sure we continue to focus on financial viability; it is incredibly important that these councils are financially sustainable. As I have already stated, we have seen that the councils that have already gone into unitaries make very significant savings, so that financial stability is absolutely key to what we are doing on this.

To come back to the original points that I made, we are making a generational change here to local government. We must make sure that we give the certainty to local government that we all want to see and that we create a local government framework across the country that can actually deliver the power and funding we need in every postcode, to see opportunity realised in every postcode in this country.

Voter Registration, Election Turnout and Compulsory Voting

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the means whereby Australia has achieved far greater voter registration and general election turnout levels than the UK, and (2) compulsory voting and automatic voter registration schemes in the UK.

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

My Lords, we have examined the electoral system in Australia, where they have introduced more automated forms of voter registration. Their experience highlights just how much time, iteration and rigorous testing are required to build processes and data sources of sufficient quality. Over the coming years, we are working to create a new automated voter registration system, thereby removing a key barrier to eligible citizens participating in our democracy. It is likely that Australia’s long-established policy of compulsory voting, automated forms of registration and public engagement in democratic participation may have contributed to the higher levels of turnout at its elections. Different democracies make different choices about how they encourage electoral participation.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the turnout level in Australia’s most recent general election was 91%, compared to only 60% in the UK, and Australia has achieved voter registration levels of 98%, compared to just 86% in the UK. The Government’s impact assessment suggests that the moves towards automatic voter registration will increase voter registration rates by less than 0.8% in two years—perhaps in time for the next election. Do the Government accept that low turnouts and there being perhaps 8 million people missing from our electoral registers severely weaken the health of our democracy? What more will they do to address these issues?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I stress to the noble Lord that I said it has taken a long time for Australia to get where it has. It started off with compulsory voting in 1924. The 1922 election saw a less than 60% turnout. That has risen, as he said, to 91% in the 2025 election, but that is a result of a number of steps it has taken, including the registration steps that we are looking at now. It is an iterative process and we need to move ahead with it carefully. We make different choices in different countries about the way we move this forward. At the moment, the Government believe that we have to focus on taking down barriers to participation. That is why we are taking steps in the Representation of the People Bill, which we will be debating shortly, to make voting easier and more accessible before we go forward with any further steps.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, to some, compulsory voting might seem a rather illiberal proposal. Have the Government considered incentivised voting instead, perhaps in the form of a National Lottery draw for all voters on the occasion of each general election, with the winning prize going to one of the voters—or, if they object, it could be donated to charity instead?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am all for innovation in election processes, but that might cause some problems among members of our community who do not like to take part in gambling. However, we have been doing some voter piloting. The key thing here is to tackle the barriers to people getting involved in the democratic process. We know what they are. The Electoral Commission did a review very recently on this, and people were very clear that it is lack of information about parties and candidates, negative perception of the voting system and that voting is too complicated. Anyone who has been on the doorstep trying to persuade someone to go out to vote will realise the misconception about how voting works. We have to tackle those barriers before we start thinking about the more exciting innovation that my noble friend speaks about.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, is this not a question of letting people choose whether they wish to vote or register to vote? This seems an easy thing. I hate to agree with the Government on this, but taking caution is a very sensible thing to do.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I did not expect to get that support, but I am very grateful for it. The Government support the use of pilots to test and evaluate electoral reforms—which is exactly what we have been doing through this process—where there is a clear case for doing so, but we do not have any plans for piloting compulsory voting at this time. We want to remove those barriers to participation, make it easier for eligible electors to register and vote, and make sure that we encourage the 7 or 8 million voters who could vote but who are currently not registered to get on the register.

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

My Lords, the Minister very kindly gave me a Written Answer saying that Government have no current plans to introduce compulsory voting. However, since an amendment will be proposed by my noble friends Lady Royall, Lord Kinnock and Lord Blunkett, and me to the Representation of the People Bill, will she talk with her colleagues in government and see if this is an opportunity to consider compulsory voting, since there are no rational arguments against it?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I very much look forward to debating this when we start the Representation of the People Bill on 14 September. I am sure there will be lively discussions about all matters to do with elections. Of course, I am always happy to debate things that are already in the Bill or things that people want to have in the Bill as we go through that process.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, the Representation of the People Bill proposes automatic voter registration, which will obviously involve new computers and new data systems. Can the Minister clarify how much this is expected to cost?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We want to make sure that the system is adequate to deal with all voter registration. We are assured by the Electoral Commission and the electoral administration authorities that we have sufficient processes in place, because the system is set up to register all voters who are eligible to vote. What we need to do is encourage them to do so and make sure they are on those systems.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, if 16 year-olds are able to vote in future, at the first election after their 16th birthday, how will they all be registered to do so? Do not local authorities face a problem with non-registration, whereby it enables some people to claim single person discount on their council tax?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

In terms of voting at 16, the Government intend the franchise change to be in place in good time ahead of the next general election. We were elected on a clear mandate, which included extending that right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds, and that will be a major change to the electoral franchise. We need to get it right. It is not just the change to the electoral law but making sure we have the democratic and civic education process in place, and I know that my noble friend the Minister for Education is working on that as we speak. We are putting all that in place before we get to the stage where 16 and 17 year-olds will be asked to cast their vote.

On the issue of single person council tax discount, that is a matter for people’s declarations. They make a declaration to their local authority which is renewed regularly when they renew their council tax bill. They have to say consistently that they still wish to claim that single person council tax discount.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister may have been somewhat disconcerted by receiving support from my noble friend Lord Robathan. She will be even more disconcerted that she is receiving support from me as well on compulsory voting and compulsory registration. Can she confirm that she has looked carefully at the way Northern Ireland provides access to everybody to check the register? Would that not provide the opportunity for good online voter registration without the cost to which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We worked very closely with the devolved Administrations as we went through this process. There were a number of pilots in Wales, for example, and we are working with our Welsh colleagues to explore what they learned from their experience. We are looking very carefully at open registers because, as we explore and adopt those more automated approaches, we want to remove the presumption that citizens will be added to an open register unless they opt out. I think it will work the other way round, in effect, once we have automated voter registration. All those issues are being explored very carefully, and we are very much looking at the experience in our devolved Administrations to learn what we can with them and from them.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, democracy is of course about a lot more than simply voter participation. What are the Government currently doing to enable civic participation at this time, particularly by minoritised groups, which will aid in safeguarding our democracy?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate, because he enables me to answer in a better way the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, asked me yesterday about how we are involving and engaging people in the democratic process. Electors’ attitudes and motivations are arguably more important than process issues in stopping them registering and voting, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate will be aware. The Electoral Commission, as I said, explored the reasons for that. Backed by a total of £2.5 million, the democratic engagement fund will provide grants of £1,000 to £50,000, with most awards expected to be around £25,000. We expect projects on that democratic engagement to be completed by January 2028, and we will be exploring many different ways of having better democratic engagement, particularly across groups that are less inclined to vote.

Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 June be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, as Members will recall, the Government have been consistently clear in our commitment to get Britain building and to deliver the homes and infrastructure this country needs, but we have been equally clear that this must go hand in hand with improving outcomes for nature.

To honour that commitment, we legislated to introduce the nature restoration fund through the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The Government are incredibly grateful to Members of this House, not just for the late nights on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill but for the very constructive engagement throughout the Bill’s passage which has ensured that the NRF provides a robust framework to support development and secure a lasting legacy of environmental improvement. The Nature Restoration Levy Regulations provide the statutory framework for the operation of the nature restoration levy which sits at the core of the NRF.

Before I get into the detail of the regulations, I want to respond to the amendment before us. I want to be clear that the nature restoration levy has not been designed to undermine development viability. On the contrary, the levy is intended to provide developers with a clearer, more certain and more streamlined route to meeting specific environmental obligations. The legislation includes a number of safeguards to ensure that levy rates are set appropriately and are based on the cost of delivering the conservation measures needed to materially outweigh the impacts of development on a protected site or species.

Natural England will be required to consult on proposed charging schedules as part of the environmental delivery plan process and levy rates will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State before an EDP is made. Through this approach, we are ensuring that development contributes fairly to environmental improvement while providing the certainty needed to support the delivery of essential homes and infrastructure.

As noble Lords will be aware, the purpose of the NRF is simple—to ensure that vital development is delivered while taking more effective action at strategic scale to deliver better outcomes for the environment. This approach will move us away from piecemeal interventions on a site-by-site basis and will secure the delivery of conservation measures that go further than maintaining the status quo to drive genuine environmental improvement.

Before we consider this instrument in detail, it is important to note that we are not today debating the fundamental principles that underpin the nature restoration fund. The enabling powers for these regulations are contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses and approved by them. Shifting to a strategic approach requires proper planning, which is why the creation of environmental delivery plans sits at the heart of this new approach. EDPs will be developed by Natural England, the Government’s adviser on the natural environment, and will demonstrate how the proposed package of conservation measures delivered by the EDP will materially outweigh one or more impacts of development on a protected site or species.

Each EDP will be subject to public consultation, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to scrutinise the evidence presented by Natural England. At the conclusion of that consultation process, the Secretary of State will consider whether the EDP meets the overall improvement test established through the Act before they formally make the EDP. Where an EDP is in place, developers will have the option to pay the nature restoration levy to discharge the relevant environmental obligations that the EDP covers.

That brings us to the subject of our discussions today, as the Government have been clear that the action delivered through the EDP will be funded through proportionate contributions from development. This ensures that developers continue to address the environmental impacts of development. The Nature Restoration Levy Regulations set out how the levy mechanism will work in practice. They provide the statutory framework for key elements of the levy’s operation, including how liability to pay the levy may be assumed, imposed or transferred. They also explain how the amount of the levy will be calculated, when the payment will be due and the enforcement mechanisms available to Natural England where obligations are not met.

The purpose of the nature restoration levy is to enable the delivery, management, maintenance and monitoring of the conservation measures identified in the relevant EDP. These regulations therefore provide clear safeguards to support the effective delivery of EDPs. They ensure that payments from developers are sufficient to meet the costs of the relevant conservation measures, are properly recovered in a timely manner and are aligned with the commercial realities of development. Levy rates will be set through individual EDP charging schedules which will form part of the EDP consulted on. These charging schedules will be based primarily on the cost of delivering the conservation measures that are needed to materially outweigh development impacts.

At times during passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, concerns were raised that funds collected through the nature restoration fund might be diverted to pay for other, unrelated priorities. However, I can reassure noble Lords that these regulations ensure that levy funds can be used only for the delivery of conservation measures set out in the relevant EDP and administrative expenses connected with that EDP. Clear reporting requirements around how levy receipts are spent will further enable the NRF to operate transparently and with appropriate scrutiny.

While the levy regulations are a key part of the new system, we recognise that users will need proper support to navigate the NRF. Initial guidance has now been published by MHCLG, Defra and Natural England to support the implementation of the first EDPs. This guidance sets out the key steps for NRF users and explains the core operational processes that will underpin the NRF system. The Government will continue to work with stakeholders to identify further areas where guidance might assist in the delivery of the nature restoration fund.

I trust that the House will agree that these regulations will support the effective implementation of the NRF and the rollout of EDPs. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their considered contributions. It has been a useful debate, but some of it has reflected some of the issues that we rehearsed in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and has not focused as much on the regulations. I will try to touch on as many points as I can, but I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that, in a short debate such as this, if I do not get to them, I may have to respond in writing.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised the key issue of the balance between MHCLG and Defra, both specifically around EDPs but also more widely about the nature restoration fund. We are going to have to get used to working across more than one department on some of these issues. Defra clearly has a key role, but MHCLG is the ministry responsible for planning, so we have to make sure that we get that balance right. As far as I know, Defra will continue to be responsible for EDPs. We had long discussions on the Bill about the Secretary of State for Defra signing off EDPs. If that is not the case, I will come back to the noble Lord, but my memory is that it is.

A number of noble Lords raised issues that were discussed during the passage of the Bill around the capacity and capability of Natural England. The noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned this. Natural England is the appropriate delivery body for the NRF. It has internal expertise and is able to operate effectively across the whole of England.

By providing an alternative to the existing approach of the fragmented, site-by-site mitigation that we saw, through the introduction of a strategic, plan-led system, the NRF enables Natural England to deploy more expertise more efficiently across regional geographies. It will be supported to take strategic action and to deliver the conservation measures set out within individual EDPs using income from the nature restoration levy.

The regulations also enable targeted use of levy funding to cover the administrative costs, which there were a number of questions about. It can be used for the administrative costs associated with the delivery of individual EDPs, not spread across the country. This will enable Natural England to build and maintain the capacity and capability to design, implement and monitor EDPs effectively.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, focused a lot of his comments on viability, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and I understand the reasons for that. I point out initially that the NRF is not the only consideration in planning in relation to infrastructure. The whole planning system—we have just republished the NPPF—makes it very clear that all issues around infrastructure must be taken into account.

On the NRF, Natural England will have the flexibility to set rates that reflect local circumstances and capture specific environmental and delivery considerations across the EDP. Where levy rates need to be higher, this will reflect the genuine cost of securing required conservation measures to address the impact of development. The vast majority of EDPs will be voluntary—I will come on to the mandatory issue in a moment—so developers will be able to choose between using the EDP or meeting environmental obligations through existing means.

Rates will be set out in the individual EDP charging schedules, alongside information regarding how they have been set. It will therefore be a requirement on Natural England to set out how it has set its rates. Levy rates will vary between EDPs and can be calculated for specific development by reference to factors including the type of development, the location and environmental impact.

On the mandatory EDPs, which the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both mentioned, we would expect EDPs to be made mandatory only in very limited circumstances—for example, where Natural England has worked directly with a developer on a specific EDP to cover its project alone. All EDPs will be subject to a full public consultation before they can be made by the Secretary of State. Given that the vast majority of them will be voluntary, if an EDP is not a viable, competitive or attractive option, developers can continue to use existing routes to meet their obligations, limiting the ability of Natural England to deliver the wider environmental benefits that the NRF is designed to achieve. So, in all but exceptional circumstances, EDPs will be voluntary.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised the issue of the mitigation hierarchy and whether this is being weakened by this process, leaving Natural England with too much discretion. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we were clear that the mitigation hierarchy lives on in this model, but that Natural England is not required to apply it in the inflexible way that has often constrained strategic nature recovery. To make sure the Government were as transparent as possible on this point, a specific duty was introduced in the House requiring regulations to be made setting out the appropriate prioritisation, by Natural England, of the different ways of addressing any negative effect of development.

The Environmental Delivery Plan (Appropriate Prioritisation) Regulations, laid alongside the regulations before us, deliver on that commitment. They make clear that Natural England must consider the mitigation hierarchy when developing an EDP, while they preserve the discretion of Natural England to determine the appropriate conservation measures in the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, have been working very effectively with Defra on these issues, and I am very grateful to them for their input.

Issues were raised around gold-plating of conservation measures, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Fuller. While Natural England must prepare EDPs based on the best available scientific evidence and explain why the proposed conservation measures are appropriate, it is also required to set levy rates that will enable the recovery of the costs of delivering the EDP, rather than generate surplus funds. All EDPs, as I said, are subject to public consultation and approval by the Secretary of State.

Finally, Natural England will be incentivised to ensure that the levy remains competitive and attractive to developers, as EDPs will be voluntary in almost all circumstances. So, if it gold plates them, developers will not accept them. It is as simple as that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised issues around consultation. There are government consultation guidelines which I am assuming have been recognised in the consultation on this but, if the noble Baroness will allow me, I will go back and check that this type of consultation follows those guidelines and respond in writing on that point.

On the issue of setting the levy, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the levy regulations establish clear parameters that Natural England must follow when setting the levy rates. They also recognise that the costs underpinning EDPs will vary according to the environmental impacts being addressed and the conservation measures required. This framework provides Natural England with the flexibility to set levy rates that reflect local needs and delivery requirements. The levy is designed to enable full cost recovery, so there should not be a cost to Natural England for that, and rates are required to reflect the costs of delivering the necessary conservation measures as well as administration, monitoring and maintenance activities.

The governing test remains the overall improvement test, whereby an EDP will materially outweigh the negative effects of development. Although I understand some of the concerns, particularly around viability, we cannot carry on with a situation where developers were doing development that was polluting our rivers in a way that has caused inordinate damage to them. We had to take some action on this. Levy rates will also take account of relevant administrative costs necessary to the delivery of the EDP under which the levy is charged.

There were questions on funding from other sources—the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised this and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, had some concerns about this issue as well—and about whether the ability to reduce levy payments where there is funding from other sources will result in developers not paying their fair share. That is not the case. The provision is intended to allow a targeted flexibility in very limited circumstances, enabling the Government or other sources to contribute to the costs of delivering an EDP where appropriate to support viability for certain types of priority development. That is what that provision in the regulations is for.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about the timing of levy payments, which is a very important point. I know she is concerned about the payments by instalment. The regulations enable payments to be made in instalments to better align with the realities of build-out phases, but this will be possible only where expressly provided for by Natural England through instalment plans. Instalment plan options may vary between EDPs. Where an instalment plan is used, payments will typically be spread across the development period rather than being required in full up front. However, even where an instalment plan applies, the first instalment must be paid before development can commence. I will not go into the detail because I do not have time, but there are clear provisions to help Natural England with enforcement and the follow-up if payments are not made. We have looked very closely at that.

In conclusion, the instrument sets out a framework for the nature restoration levy and provides Natural England with the tools it needs to implement the NRF. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, whose points were mainly about the housing crisis—a housing crisis that his Government caused and we are now trying to fix—I make no apologies for wanting to build these homes, for the £39 billion we are investing in housing, for wanting people’s homes to be safe and secure and for wanting their environments to be sustainable.

I trust that the House agrees that these regulations will support the delivery of the nature restoration fund and our shared ambition more widely to grow both nature and the economy. I hope that these regulations will be welcomed.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I just clarify a couple of comments that she made? She was very clear that there would be an option as to whether one went with the Natural England EDP. Can we be absolutely clear that that will always be the case, particularly when Natural England is marking its own homework and deciding whether the mitigation put in place by a developer, whatever that is, is sufficient or not? Secondly, she said that it would be mandatory only in very specific situations and gave the example of an EDP that was specifically brought forward for a particular large development. Can she be clear that that is the only instance in which it would be mandatory? Thirdly, I think she said that developers cause pollution. I believe additional housing results in additional burdens on nutrient neutrality; it is not necessarily that the developer itself is polluting. The Minister might want to clarify that one.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will clarify that, in all but exceptional circumstances, EDPs are voluntary for developers. The Planning and Infrastructure Act establishes that Natural England can recommend that use of an EDP be mandatory only where it deems it to be necessary. This is a high legal bar, and it would ultimately be for the Secretary of State to consider whether an EDP is made. Given that the vast majority of EDPs will be voluntary, if an EDP is not a viable, competitive or attractive option, developers will continue to use existing routes to meet their obligations, limiting the ability of Natural England to deliver the wider environmental benefits that the NRF is designed to achieve.

We want to make this process work better for nature while continuing to allow the growth we all want to see take place, particularly housing growth. There is no doubt in my mind that we could not carry on as we were. We have had to make some changes to make sure that we protect our natural environment and get the growth we want to see.