Birmingham City Council

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, 17,000 tonnes of uncollected household waste creating mountainous heaps of stinking rubbish on the streets of Birmingham is simply unacceptable—particularly in terms of the public health hazard that is created. As a result, and after three weeks of a strike by bin workers, the city has declared a major incident. It is expected that this will allow the council to implement a contingency plan to clear the waste mountain from the streets. So my first question to the Minister is: how confident are the Government that the waste will be cleared before the Easter holidays? Given that this emergency action has been taken because of the growing public health risk, how sure are the Government that diseases caused by a combination of rotting rubbish and rats can be prevented? My third question is: what are the public health risks faced by residents living in those parts of Birmingham where the rubbish mountains are worst?

The very challenging financial strictures facing the city council are of course one cause of this dire situation. The apparent failure to tackle the long-standing equal pay claims from women employed by the council is another contributory factor. Equal pay claims have been a challenge for councils across the country. Some resolve the problem by outsourcing: others, including my own council, resolved the absolutely unfair pay systems over 20 years ago by working with unions to agree a single pay spine and settling women’s claims for lost pay. |If that was 20 years ago, can the Minister explain how it is that, in Birmingham, equal pay claims were allowed to fester for so long?

I raise the significance of equal pay as the council cites it as a fundamental reason for not being able to settle the current dispute. Can the Minister comment on whether Birmingham City Council has finally resolved historic equal pay claims and whether existing pay for all employees is on a fair footing?

It is of course right to acknowledge that Birmingham has had a reduction in its core funding of 40% or more, which has left the spending level per person 19% lower than 14 years ago. In more deprived areas, the loss per person is nearer to 26%, according to a report from the IFS. Clearly, the huge loss of funding has put the council into very difficult circumstances. Eleventh-hour additional funding from the previous Government helped forestall the financial collapse of the city council. As a consequence, very difficult decisions have had to be made. Can the Minister confirm that major change to support council finances is needed and will come?

Finally, it has to be asked whether Birmingham City Council is too large. It serves 1.2 million people, which makes it the largest local government authority in Europe—double the size of the next largest in this country. With just 101 councillors, each one serves over 12,000 people. Can the Minister explain how community representation can occur under these circumstances? The reason for the question is that the different needs and aspirations in a council of that size are hard to meet when elected representation is on that scale. It seems likely to have contributed to the problems now being faced. Does the Minister agree?

Birmingham is a great city. It needs the support of the Government and Opposition in aiding a recovery. I look forward to the questions asked being answered, either now or in writing.

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

I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions. I will elaborate on the Statement a little but, before I do, the tone taken by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, showed no acceptance of the 14 years of funding withdrawal from local government. That is at the heart of this problem.

I would like to update the House on the statutory intervention at Birmingham City Council, which was part of the reason for this Statement in the other place, and on issues affecting the waste service, following the Statement made by my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution in the other place yesterday. This Government were elected on a manifesto that pledged to fix the foundations of local government and we have set about doing that with some energy. The public rightly expect and deserve well-functioning local councils that provide the essential statutory services that residents rely on.

Local councils must be fit, they must be legal and they must be decent. Commissioners have been working with Birmingham City Council for the last 18 months to support the council in its recovery. Their latest report on that progress was published by the Government yesterday and lands at a point of acute difficulty for residents in Birmingham. As we know, the ongoing waste dispute is resulting in rubbish piling up in the streets, so I will also take this opportunity to give the latest update on the status of that dispute.

The council has taken important initial steps forward on its improvement journey and is working constructively with commissioners. It has made significant progress in addressing historic equal pay issues and fixing the foundations of its governance. The leader, Councillor Cotton, and his group are taking difficult decisions to get the council back on track. The commissioners have recognised that, and that his calm leadership through stormy waters is definitely moving the council forward. The new managing director, Joanne Roney CBE, has brought a steady hand and is beginning to make permanent senior appointments that will contribute to that much-needed stabilisation. The council has also achieved a breakthrough by achieving an agreement to settle the outstanding claims to end the ongoing equal pay saga. It has also set a reimplementation strategy for the Oracle system, which was part of the issue there.

That improvement is encouraging, but deep challenges remain. In the short term, commissioner oversight and close supervision will still be required to maintain the momentum that has started to build. There is a difficult road ahead on the key aspects of the best value regime—governance and culture, financial management and service delivery—because substantial risks threaten the journey to reform and recovery.

As we all know, there is a live industrial action in waste services involving one of the three unions recognised at the council. The Government will support the leader and his team at Birmingham, directly and through the commissioners, to move the council on from these historic issues. That includes an increase in core spending power of up to 9.8%, or £131 million, for 2025-26, including £39.3 million of new one-off recovery grant, illustrating the Government’s commitment to correcting the unfairness in the funding system; and an “in principle” agreement to the exceptional financial support, totalling £1.24 billion.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised the issue of council tax, but actually it was his Government who signed off a 10% council tax increase in Birmingham last year. That was more than the council put up its council tax by this year.

Councils deliver more than 800 services and make a huge difference, but it is accepted that for many, the most visible and universal service is the collection and disposal of household waste. Many noble Lords know that the current industrial action in the city is causing misery and disruption to local residents. I am not going to make light of that; I know how difficult it is for them.

From the outset, we want to be clear that statutory intervention is led by commissioners and Ministers, who cannot legally intervene in the industrial action. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution has been in regular contact with the leadership of the council throughout as it has sought to find a resolution which, importantly, maintains the reforms needed to build a sustainable council and which also returns waste collection to a normal functioning service. This is causing public health risks to the city’s most vulnerable and deprived and, as a result, yesterday Birmingham declared a major incident to give it the mechanisms to better manage the impact on residents. I support that decision, and this Government will back local leaders to bring the situation back under control in the weeks to come.

The Government will not hesitate to provide support in any way that Birmingham’s leaders need and, as Parliament would expect, a meeting with the leadership of the council, the commissioners and other key local partners is taking place to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect public health. I spoke to Councillor Cotton myself this afternoon to ask him if there is anything further he wants us to do.

It is in the interests of all parties—and, most importantly, the people at the heart of this, the residents of Birmingham—that the industrial action is brought to a close in a meaningful and sustainable way as soon as possible, and we encourage all parties to redouble their efforts, get round the table and find that resolution. Councillor Cotton confirmed that live negotiations are ongoing; that work is still continuing. To do this, any deal to end industrial action must maintain value for money and ensure a fit-for-purpose waste service, without creating or storing up liabilities for the future. All parties recognise that Birmingham’s waste service has been in urgent need of modernisation for years. Any deal reached must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion. This situation simply cannot continue, and that is what needs resolving, and resolving urgently. Our Government will support the council in its journey to creating the sustainable, fair and reliable waste service that the residents of Birmingham deserve. We will support the council to resolve historic issues and to continue to establish the leadership, governance and culture that will transform the services and deliver good-quality public services for the people of Birmingham.

On the noble Lord’s specific questions and his comment about failing to address the issue, there have been consistent meetings and discussions with Birmingham throughout this situation to make sure that we give it any support it needs, but it is right that it should be Birmingham City Council’s decision to enable co-ordination between public sector partners on the ground in Birmingham. That is why it has declared this major incident—to ensure that public safety and health is restored. While the situation in Birmingham is clearly very serious and deteriorating, the declaration of a major incident is a well-established mechanism for ensuring that public sector partners can co-ordinate locally to deliver a resolution.

The noble Lord asked whether COBRA would be convened. COBRA is used for significant crises which require a collective government response, co-ordinated at the centre by the Cabinet Office. We are in regular contact with Birmingham City Council, and local leaders are confident at the moment that they can manage the situation. Should this change, we stand ready to respond to any ask for support.

The noble Lord asked how many bin lorries are active. He will be aware that one of the issues was the blocking, as part of the strike action, of bin lorries’ entrance to and exit from the depot. We are hoping that that can be resolved as the negotiations go forward. I cannot tell him off the top of my head exactly how many bin lorries are able to operate, but I shall come back to him in writing on that.

The noble Baroness asked how confident we are that waste will be cleared before Easter. We all want to see this situation resolved as quickly as possible. I hope that, with the good will of all parties, and given that they are still in negotiations with each other, we will be able to resolve this dispute sooner rather than later.

The noble Lord asked about sending in staff or giving extra money to help clear up the rubbish, and whether we would send in private contractors to do that job. As you all know, I am a firm believer in devolution and in letting local people sort the issues out locally. It is right that the response is led by the area’s key public sector partners. We are in regular contact with those local leaders, and negotiations are still open.

On the issues relating to public health, the director for public health at Birmingham City Council is part of the response, and the impact assessment of the strike is closely monitoring the situation on the ground and will continue to do so. The UK Health Security Agency met with the director for public health yesterday and will remain in close contact to ensure that all parties are well informed.

Issues were raised about equal pay, and of course, the noble Baroness is right to say that we needed to resolve those. They were entrenched and affected some of the female workers in Birmingham enormously. We have to give credit to Birmingham for working its way through what has been a very long and hard process. I have gone through one of these equal pay settlements myself. The trade unions have been involved in resolving most of the issues; this is that last part of that process, and the matter is still outstanding. As I say, we urge everyone concerned to get round the table and resolve this now.

I hope that that has answered all the questions. The noble Baroness asked about the size of the council. We are going through a process with all councils of discussing how we take things forward, but it is important that, at the moment, we leave the commissioners and local leadership in Birmingham to do the work they need to do to turn the council around. That work is progressing well; there is still a lot more to do but a lot has been done already, so I hope we will get to where we need to be.

The noble Baroness also referred, rightly, to funding cuts. Birmingham City Council received the sharpest cuts of any council in the country. Because it is the biggest council in the country, the ripple effect that we all felt in local government from the horrendous hollowing out under the last Government hit Birmingham like a tsunami, so I do not think the Benches opposite have much right to criticise what went on there.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise: I failed to declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend acknowledge that the seeds of this dispute were sown during the period when the Conservative and Liberal party coalition ran the city of Birmingham? Many of the financial problems facing the city over the years were caused by the Conservative and Liberal Government in power in Westminster. On this dispute, will my noble friend acknowledge that the city council has made a perfectly reasonable offer to the union? Among the solutions put forward by the city were the following: NVQ training for alternative work for those affected by the dispute; voluntary redundancy on enhanced terms for those who decline to accept the new terms; six months’ pay protection for the 17 people directly affected by the council’s proposals; fully funded LGV driving training with a guaranteed role at the end for any staff who wish to take it up; and a one-off payment, as an alternative to redundancy, to buy out contracted entitlements. Does my noble friend agree that these are fair and reasonable terms that the union concerned should accept, and that it should reflect on the damage being done to its fellow citizens as well as to the image of Britain’s second city?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right; Birmingham is a proud city with proud people, and I know that they are embarrassed at what they are seeing. It is time that this is resolved. The vast majority of the workforce of the waste service have agreed a way forward by one route or another, whether that is taking voluntary redundancy, accepting new ways of working or many of the other routes that my noble friend mentioned. This now comes down to a small number of people who have not accepted them. That is where the dispute lies. A city such as Birmingham cannot grind to a halt in such a circumstance. We urge everybody to get back around the table and resolve the issues for this small number of remaining members of the workforce, and then we can restore Birmingham to the rightful place it holds as our second city and the pride of the Midlands.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as having been a Member of Parliament for a Birmingham constituency—Sutton Coldfield—for 27 years, so I know a little about the area.

I am not sure that I agree with the Minister or my noble friend Lord Snape—he used to be my pair, so I call him my noble friend just to keep in with old things. I am not sure they can simply ride away from this and say that the origins of this and the problem are all down to the last Conservative Government. That argument does not stand up. The real problem we need to tackle is not in going back. We have an instant problem now in Birmingham. As we all know, we have the problem of the streets and the rest. We need most urgently to find a solution to that, not to go into all the details over years and years.

Two points come out of this debate. First, surely the Government have a prime responsibility to preserve public health. That has not happened over the last month. They have failed dismally in that duty, not to this House or the House of Commons but to the citizens of Birmingham. They have let them down, and we are still to find out the final result of that negligence. The Government are now saying, as they should, whether they agree with the action of the pickets in stopping trucks removing the mounds of rubbish that have scarred the city and attracted rats and other vermin —we have not imagined this; it is an actuality—and that kind of action and that kind of defeat cannot be justified to the public. The people stopping the lorries are causing immense damage to individuals.

The people who matter most in this are the citizens of Birmingham, and they have been let down. That is the fact of the matter. The Minister should be turning her mind to how the Government will urgently help to get this straight. It is not a matter of having committees and long discussions. We now need urgency and urgent action. I hope the Minister can tell us of some of that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I certainly agree that the people of Birmingham are at the heart of this issue. They are first in our thoughts. I agree that urgent action is necessary. That is why I spoke with the leader of Birmingham City Council today to see whether there was anything further we could do to support them. He believes that the way to resolve this is to get around the table as quickly as possible, and that is just what he aims to do.

On the noble Lord’s comments on how the situation arose in the first place, there had been serious financial and governance failings. Birmingham City Council issued a Section 114 notice, which effectively says that the council does not have control of its finances, in September 2023. It did so due to accepting a £760 million liability that arose from those equal pay claims, along with in-year budget deficits that arose from the Oracle IT system. It has been working through a very intense programme of activity to put those issues right. It has not been easy for the leadership of Birmingham City Council; nobody goes into local government to cut services or make things less easy for their residents. It has been doing that with the commissioners, who are working very well with the council and have produced a frank and honest report. There is a copy in the Library if any noble Lord wants to look at it. I agree that preserving public health is vital. That is why the director of public health in Birmingham and the UK Health Security Agency regularly review what is going on there, to make sure that everything is done that can be to ensure that the public health situation does not deteriorate any further.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has referred to serious financial failings in Birmingham, and the Statement admits that:

“Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion to the residents of Birmingham. This situation simply cannot continue”.


Does the Minister agree that this situation might not have arisen had it not been for the abolition, just over a decade ago, of the Audit Commission, which had a role in delivering best value as well as formal audit responsibilities? Taking Birmingham as an example, might the Government consider whether that decision was wise and whether something needs to be done to improve long-term audit of local authorities in England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the premise of the noble Lord’s question. The audit situation right across local government, not just in Birmingham, has deteriorated beyond what should be tenable. The audit function assures the public in an area that their council is what I described: legal, decent and fit for purpose. Unfortunately, due to the changes to the audit regime, that is not the case. I was horrified to find that whole of government accounts have been qualified because of a lack of assurance on the local government audit situation. We cannot allow that to continue. The Government are looking at what we need to do about audit. We will bring forward something in the English devolution Bill that covers the audit regime, and we will attempt to make it better than it is now. It is so important that the public can have confidence in the money spent not just by their Government but by local government as well. We will aim to make sure that that is the case. It has been a bee in my bonnet for a long time, and I hope to put it right.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in responding to Front-Bench questions, the Minister said that councils must “provide essential statutory services”. One of those statutory duties for councils, under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, is to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. Birmingham Council is planning to slash library opening hours, cutting them by a third and potentially closing seven libraries in a city where 46% of children are living in poverty and 43% of residents live in neighbourhoods that are part of the poorest 10% in the country. People need libraries for children to do their homework, old people to go somewhere warm and for everyone to access digital services. Does the Minister believe that, with these new cuts to libraries, Birmingham is going to meet its statutory responsibilities, given that it is actually under central government supervision?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know of my fondness for libraries, because I am sure she has heard me talk about them before in the Chamber. As I said earlier, nobody stands for election as a councillor to cut any services, particularly libraries, which we know are so important to people.

It is important for residents of Birmingham that their council gets back on a safe and stable financial footing. I add that the potential of Birmingham to contribute to the growth mission and regeneration is enormous. Once the commissioners working with the leadership of the council have stabilised the finances, it will be able to support services. I am very pleased that it has not actually cut all its libraries, as we have seen in some other areas, as the noble Baroness will be very well aware, but the closure of any library is a sadness. Once our Birmingham colleagues have stabilised the finances—and with the growth agenda that they will be able to participate in—I am sure that they will want to restore that service as soon as they can.

We should not underestimate the importance of libraries. I practically grew up in my mobile library; it was a great comfort to me. They are important for all the reasons that the noble Baroness said. I hope that Birmingham will be able to restore them as quickly as possible.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister quite rightly talks about the second report of the commissioners, which was published yesterday. There is a very telling paragraph that the House needs to be aware of, and I would like to hear the Minister’s response to it. It says that

“the Council, currently, still lacks the ability and self-awareness to deliver timely, sustainable reform at the pace required without substantial support and direction”.

In the light of that, the Minister’s response of “leave the commissioners alone” does not stand up. The commissioners are saying that further substantial reform is required. What substantial reform and extra support are the Government now thinking of? What is the timescale for that, in the light of the commissioners saying that it is required?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think the commissioners are referring to the fact that each time a report is due, the Government can consider whether it is time to take the commissioners’ support out. The commissioners were trying to indicate that they do not feel that the council is ready for their support to be withdrawn at this stage.

The report highlights the progress made by the council so far. It notes the leadership of Councillor Cotton and Joanne Roney, and the hard work of many diligent members of staff in the council. In the circumstance we find ourselves in with Birmingham, that can often be overlooked. Many of the staff there are working tirelessly to make sure that the council delivers for its residents.

The report also sets out that the journey to recovery and financial stability is far from over, as the noble Lord says, and has been heavily dependent on the input, guidance and advice of the commissioner team so far. The indication in the line that the noble Lord quoted is that the council continues to need that commissioner support. We agree with that as a Government, and we will continue to support the leader and his team in Birmingham directly and through the commissioners to move the council on from the historical issues with a fair resolution. The way to do this is to continue on the journey that the council is on and make sure that they all stabilise the council so that it will be able to deliver for its residents long into the future.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a member of Unite the Union. I urge my fellow brothers and sisters to keep on talking.

Under the previous Government, many councils of all colours went bankrupt, including Birmingham Council. The root cause of all this was the historical underfunding by the previous Government, as the noble Lord has pointed out, for the past 14 years. Is the historical underfunding of Birmingham Council still the problem there?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Like many noble Lords in this House, he has direct experience of leading a council, so he has felt the pain of funding cuts, as have all of us who have been in that position. We have made some changes to the local government funding formula this year to make sure that funding goes where it is needed most, instead of following a historical pattern of allocations. We will make further changes to that. As noble Lords will be aware, we are going into the spending review process now, which is why we could issue only one-year settlements, but we will provide multiyear funding settlements, which will make a difference to the stability for local government funding and make sure that the greater quantum of funding goes to the areas where it is most needed, of which Birmingham is certainly one.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear what the Minister said about restoring audit, because the best value commissioners’ report is an astonishing catalogue of failures in governance and culture—deep rooted, long term and all pervasive. What systems does the Minister envisage to allow the new unitaries that the Government are creating to start out with strong cultures and governance, rather than fall into the despairing place that Birmingham finds itself?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I described my commitment to audit in an answer to an earlier question. Audit is part of that, and so is the collaboration that local government is now pulling together to drive the route towards these new unitary authorities, which will serve them well as they go through the process. We absolutely have to make sure that audit function is in place and sound, because that is the public’s reassurance that their council is not only financially stable but making good use of public money. That is why it should be considered as part of the English devolution Bill.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I take my noble friend back to the comments of my noble friend Lord Snape—who, like me, represented the Borough of Sandwell—and the root cause of this problem: the failure of the Conservative/Lib Dem alliance running Birmingham City Council to deal with the equal pay issue. Sandwell Council borrowed the money from central government, paid it back within seven years and resolved the problem. That is the fundamental root, and my noble friend may wish to remind the Opposition Benches of that. With regard to picketing at the depots, has she had the opportunity to remind the chief constable of the West Midlands of the code of practice under the trade union and labour relations Act for the conduct of picketing, and is she satisfied that West Midlands Police are enforcing the law?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that reminder that there is not a one-party state in Birmingham; other councils have been involved in failing to tackle the equal pay issue over many years. He is quite right to say that for most councils this was a very thorny issue. It came with a great deal of negotiation needed, and quite often with a huge price tag attached. So I do not underestimate the difficulty in dealing with it, but many other councils bit the bullet and got on with it. That was not tackled in Birmingham.

I have not had any conversations with the chief constable of West Midlands Police, but I am sure that the declaration of the major incident will make sure that all agencies in Birmingham are brought in to help support the council and the commissioners and to help to restore what we all want to see: the people of Birmingham being able to get their pride in their city back, and the commissioners and the leadership of the council being able to continue to move Birmingham forward to be the city we all know it can be for the future, right at the heart of the Midlands, delivering growth for the country and being the kind of wonderful place that it is for the people of Birmingham to continue to live in.

Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 March.

Motion agreed.

Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 February. They make consequential amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other primary legislation, as well as to the planning application fee regulations. These amendments reflect the two new routes for planning permission for Crown development that were introduced through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This legislation forms part of a wider suite of statutory instruments needed to implement these new routes. These routes are crucial to ensure that there is a more timely and proportionate planning process for nationally important public services and infrastructure.

I will start by providing some context and background to these regulations. Recent experience, including the response to Covid-19, has exposed that the existing route for securing planning permission for urgent Crown development, which was introduced in 2006, is not fit for purpose—so much so that it has never been used. Furthermore, government departments have struggled to secure local planning permission for nationally important public service infrastructure, such as prisons. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act made provision to address these challenges by providing two new routes for planning permission for Crown development in England.

The first route, referred to as Crown development, is for planning applications for Crown developments that are considered of national importance. These applications are to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate directly instead of to local planning authorities. A planning inspector will consider and determine the application, unless the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government recovers the application to determine herself.

The second route is an updated urgent Crown development route. This will enable applications for nationally important developments that are needed urgently to be determined rapidly under a simplified procedure. Applications under the urgent route will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

These new routes can be used for developments only where it is clearly justified. Provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act require that applications can be accepted by the Secretary of State only if she deems that the proposed development is of national importance and that it is urgent, in the case of the urgent Crown development route. I made a Written Ministerial Statement on 13 February which set out the principles under which national importance and urgency will be determined. Applicants are required when submitting an application to set out the reasons why they consider that the development is of national importance and, in the case of urgent Crown development, is needed as a matter of urgency.

I turn to the detail of the regulations. This is the first of a suite of statutory instruments needed to implement the Crown reforms. It makes amendments to primary legislation to reflect the two new Crown development routes. For instance, it amends references to planning permission set out in a range of different pieces of legislation. It also removes references to the previous urgent Crown development route in Section 293A of the Town and Country Planning Act, which now applies only in Wales. This instrument also sets the fee for an application for planning permission under both routes. This is the same as the fee that would have been paid to the local authority if the application had been submitted to it.

Following this statutory instrument coming into force, a further suite of statutory instruments will be made through the negative parliamentary procedure. These instruments will set the procedures for the two routes and make further consequential changes to secondary legislation in order to reflect the implementation of these routes. We have published these instruments in draft ahead of this debate to provide proper transparency on how the routes will operate.

--- Later in debate ---

I recognise that we need to do something on this. We do not oppose this SI. We welcome the fact that we will be speeding through the process. Finally, can that review really be something that we see each year, not a token bit of paper? Can the Minister give us an assurance that she will happily answer questions on that, should we feel that to be necessary?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a helpful debate. As ever, our great experts on planning in the House contributed to a good discussion. I will, of course, attempt to answer all the questions. I am sure that noble Lords will pull me up if I do not if I do not answer them. I will, of course, check in Hansard afterwards and reply in writing on anything to which I have not responded to fully.

The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Shipley, asked who is able to apply for planning permission through these routes. Section 293 of the Town and Country Planning Act defines who is an applicant known as an appropriate authority for the purpose of applications under these routes. For example, this includes where land belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department. That department is considered to be an appropriate authority. For land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the duchy is the appropriate authority and for land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, a person that the Duke of Cornwall appoints is the appropriate authority. So land that goes into any of those routes will be appropriate for this route.

The uses for Crown development and confirmation of which developments Crown development can be used for was the subject of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young. I am sure that he will ask again if I have got that wrong. It will be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important, and it would not be appropriate to comment now on specific schemes. However, it is likely that the Crown development route will be used most for HMG programmes relating to nationally important public service development. For example, this would include, but not be limited to, new prisons or border infrastructure. Traditionally, those things are difficult in the planning process. The route could also be used for defence-related development, as PINS is able to put in place special procedures to handle information dealing with matters of national security. Special provisions exist whereby the Secretary of State can issue a direction limiting the disclosure of information relating to matters of the security of a premises through Section 321 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Crown development route can also be used for particularly sensitive or significant development being brought forward by, or on behalf of, the Crown. We expect few applications to be submitted through this route every year. It is not going to be used all the time; it would be an exception.

In terms of urgent Crown development, again, it will be for the Secretary of State to assess on a case-by-case basis what is deemed nationally important and needed urgently. When I looked at the papers for this SI, the first thing that came to my mind was the time when, during Covid, we were getting desperately short of mortuary space. This is a bit of a morbid subject but, in the middle of a pandemic, it is vital that you think about that and you may want to have an urgent process to deal with that sort of thing.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific schemes, but the urgent Crown development route is expected to be used very rarely, where other planning application routes just cannot be used to secure a decision quickly enough. The pandemic might have been one of those instances. It will be used only where development needs to be put in place quickly, in a matter of days or weeks, and where it is in the national interest—for things such as medical centres, the storage and distribution of key goods and services in the event of a pandemic or, potentially, mortuary space.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked who makes the decisions—he was correct in his assumption on that; I hope that that is helpful—and whether the public will be able to object. I will come to those issues in a moment.

The noble Lord asked about how national importance is defined. The Government are committed to a planning system in which decisions are made locally. However, it is a well-established principle that, in limited circumstances, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to make planning decisions where issues of more than local importance are involved. In general, the Secretary of State will consider a development to be of regional or national importance only if it would: involve the interests of national security or foreign Governments; contribute to the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as prisons or border infrastructure; support a response to international, national or regional civil emergencies; or otherwise have significant economic, social or environmental effects and strong public interest. The applicant will have to set out, as part of a statement accompanying the application, evidence demonstrating that at least one of those principles has been met.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked how “urgency” is defined. The applicant will be required to provide a statement to accompany the application setting out why they consider that the development is both nationally important and needed as a matter of urgency. The Secretary of State will accept applications through the urgent development route only where the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development is both of national importance and needed urgently. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed development needs to be made operational in an accelerated timeframe and that it is unlikely to be feasible using other application routes, including the Crown development route, and will need to evidence the likely consequences of not securing a decision within the accelerated timeframe. I hope that that is helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked me about mayoral powers and strategic planning. I share her pain, as any local councillor will, over the planning process. I will never get back the hours that I have spent in discussion about great crested newts and rare species of bats and insects, so I feel her pain on that. However, these reforms are for national and very urgent issues only.

On mayoral or strategic powers, the Crown reforms will affect the ability of combined or mayoral authorities to call in applications of potential strategic importance. The relevant combined authority will instead be consulted for development coming forward through the Crown development route, so it will be done at that strategic level.

In response to all noble Lords’ questions about how further information on this will be provided, we will publish updated planning practice guidance to reflect the new routes coming into force. We intend to publish the amended guidance closer to the implementation of the routes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked about transparency. As I said, applicants need to demonstrate that the application is of national and urgent importance, and the Secretary of State can accept that application only if she considers that that is the case.

When a decision is made to accept an application, as I set out in my opening speech, a letter will be written to the MP whose constituency the development falls in and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Application documents will be available and applications to both routes will be determined on planning merits, with the reasons behind whether to grant or refuse set out in the inspector’s report or the Secretary of State’s decision letter. I hope that that is helpful.

In my opening speech, I set out in some detail how community engagement will work; the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Jamieson, raised it again. Of course, community engagement is very important. Any comments made during the consultation and publicity period that raise material planning matters will be taken into account as part of the decision-making process. The local planning authority will also have a role to play. It will need to place the application and documents on its planning register and, as PINS does not have a local presence, the local planning authority will be required to affix site notices during the mandatory publicity period and notify owners or occupiers who adjoin the site. So, for that purpose, it will work just the same as the local planning process.

Regarding urgent Crown development community engagement, as I said, we would encourage consultation with local communities, where possible. If it is possible to do meaningful engagement in a timeframe, we would encourage that. Where it is not possible, the Secretary of State should use alternative methods to make sure that community views can be taken into account.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, talked about fixing the planning system; we hope we will be able to do that. Working very quickly, we have already managed a major consultation on the NPPF and published a revised version in December. Yesterday, the other House had a long debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will come to this House shortly. My belief is that there will always be a need for an urgency procedure for decision-making in councils. There will always be a need for some kind of urgent process and for the Secretary of State to be able to make a decision on national grounds. I hope that that has answered all noble Lords’ questions.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The Minister has been enormously helpful in answering the questions, but she did not touch on the question of whether a decision to use this route would be justiciable. She may not be able to answer that, but I assume that it would be.

The Minister mentioned the case of Covid and the mortuaries. As I understand it, this system can be used only where the Crown owns the land, so if it does not own the land, it will have to buy it before it can use this SI. If something is urgent but the Crown does not own the land on which the building is needed, I wonder whether the CPO will hold things up, or whether that can be part of a streamlined process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was assuming that it would be an application made on land already owned, but I will write to the noble Lord and set that out in further detail.

On his other point, my understanding is that all things are, technically, judicially reviewable, but I will find out the detail of that and set it out. Obviously, if we are going to put an urgent and national process in place, we want it to be able to speed through as quickly as possible, but, in the planning world, it would be most unusual for there to be no process of review should that be needed. I will get our planning team to check that for the noble Lord, and I will write to him with the exact details.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I have a question; it is not dissimilar to the one from my noble friend Lord Young. As I understand it, from what the Minister has laid out, it will in essence be up to the Minister or Secretary of State to determine whether this is urgent, nationally significant and so on. My real question is: what constraints will there be on him or her in determining that? Where is the opportunity to challenge, review or assess? I know that the Minister is going to come back on the issue of judicial review. Clearly, we do not want to have an urgent process be bogged down by it for two or three years; however, we would want some constraint on it. So what process is in place to ensure that the Minister is not in a position to determine all of this by himself or herself?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating those points. I set out that there is a set of criteria deeming whether an application is of national importance. The applicant will need to say which of those criteria they are using to say that it is of national importance. The same applies to the urgent procedure: the applicant will need to demonstrate one of those criteria for it being urgent, and the Secretary of State will decide whether or not that is the case. Out of the criteria I set out, the applicant will need to demonstrate that at least one applies. That is how it is going to work. I will have to come back to noble Lords on whether it will be reviewable.

In conclusion, the two new routes for planning permission that we are seeking to implement are necessary and timely; all noble Lords agree with that, I think. These regulations represent a crucial step to their delivery. I hope that the Committee will welcome the regulations, which address this critical requirement for a proportionate planning procedure for nationally important Crown developments.

Motion agreed.

High-rise Buildings: Safety Remediation

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on the remediation of high-rise buildings with safety defects.

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

My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord’s question, I pay tribute to all the campaigners and survivors of Grenfell who have moved this along, following seven years when little progress was made. Now, over half of 18 metre-plus buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation. On 2 December last year the Deputy Prime Minister announced the remediation acceleration plan, which sets out key measures to get buildings with unsafe cladding fixed faster, identify remaining buildings still at risk and ensure that residents are supported through the remediation process. This Government have been clear about our intention to deliver remediation faster, with more action from freeholders and developers.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Since this Question was tabled, the Public Accounts Committee in another place has published a further progress report on remediation that is highly critical of this Government and indeed the last one. It points out that, of the 5,000 buildings known to the Minister’s department to require treatment, work has started on half, and that 3 million people are living in unsafe buildings, are unable to sell their flats and face exorbitant insurance claims. It also points out that the contract with developers did not require them to remedy all the safety defects. In the meantime, not a penny has been paid by the manufacturers of unsafe cladding. The PAC says that the date of 2029, by which all treatment should have been completed, is unrealistic. Surely we can do better than this.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to say that we can do better, which is why we have introduced the remediation acceleration plan. The plan’s targets provide greater certainty to residents, a significant acceleration in pace and much greater certainty about when cladding remediation will be resolved. We have never had targets like these before. This Government have put in place a plan to deliver; it is now up to those responsible for making their buildings safe to do so. The plan has been criticised by campaigners for not being ambitious enough and by industry for being too ambitious and unachievable. All plans like this must strike a balance; we believe this plan gets the right balance and is ambitious but also achievable.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the National Audit Office also found that, in the social housing sector, remediating cladding safety defects will cost £3.8 billion. The National Housing Federation says that housing associations could build 91,000 more affordable homes if the social housing sector had equal access to government funding to pay for building safety works. Substantial funding is being diverted away from investing in new affordable homes to pay building safety costs, so could I ask the Minister whether the Government have a plan to ensure that the social housing sector can deliver the 1.5 million new affordable homes target by making it eligible for the Government’s building safety funding?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to point to the strains on social housing between remediation of all kinds of maintenance defects, including fire safety, and building new affordable housing. From April, we will increase targeted support for social landlords applying for government remediation funding. That will help them meet the costs of planning and preparing for remediation works, and to start remedial work sooner. Social landlords can apply for government remediation funding equivalent to the amount that would otherwise have been passed on to leaseholders, or for the full cost of the works where remediation would render a social landlord financially unviable. We have committed £568 million to support the remediation of social housing through government schemes.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, the Public Accounts Committee points out that developers, social housing providers, landlords and owners—everyone, it seems, except the culpable manufacturers of this cladding—are being made to contribute to the costs of remediation. What is being done to ensure that the culpable manufacturers of this cladding will be made to contribute?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that it is very important that the enforcement we set out is carried out. We have already committed £14 million to local authorities to build the capacity and capability to take that enforcement action, and the Deputy Prime Minister has announced increased funding to double that enforcement activity. In addition to enhancing the national joint inspection team, we will ensure local authorities continue to have access to expertise they can call on around their most complex and high-risk buildings. But it is vital that those who are responsible for this are both brought to account and contribute to the remediation work that needs doing.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have identified that barriers to development-led remediation include disputes between developers and freeholders over access to buildings, delays in securing the necessary regulatory approvals and access to independent assessors to carry out the quality of assessments. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to overcome these barriers to vital progress?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The remediation action plan points to the action that we need to take to move this on more quickly. Developers have determined whether work is required on about 80% of buildings for which they have taken responsibility under the remediation contract. Both developers and the Government are committed to accelerating that progress, which is why we have the plan that we published on 2 December as a joint plan. Thirty-nine developers have signed up to that and we will be moving that forward. If they fail to hit those joint plan targets, further action will be taken.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have introduced a new and lower standard of remediation, PAS 9980. Insurers, however, are not convinced that this makes buildings fully safe. The Public Accounts Committee has brought it to our attention that insurance costs remain, in its word, “unaffordable”. What are the Government going to do to address the criticism of the Public Accounts Committee and ensure that insurance costs drop considerably, so that people can afford to remain in their homes?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right to raise the issue of insurance premiums. Work has been going on to reduce those premiums for leaseholders. We have seen improvements for leaseholders who previously found themselves unable to sell or remortgage their homes, but we remain vigilant and will continue to hold the 10 major lenders to account, following their commitment to lend on properties even if the remediation is not yet complete.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to a family interest in a high-rise flat. Does the Minister accept that it is a matter not just of getting an agreement to starting dates on these schemes of remediation but of completion dates? Many schemes seem to be dragging on and on, and there will not be satisfaction in terms of safety reassurance or saleability until there is a much more stringent approach to the completion date of this necessary work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right: we need to move this on as quickly as we can. It has dragged on for far too long already. As of March 2025, we have 39 developers signed up to the joint acceleration plan. These developers account for more than 95% of the buildings to be remediated by developers under the developer mediation contract. They have committed for the first time to assess all their buildings by July 2025 and to start or complete all remedial work by July 2027—but I take the noble Lord’s point that completing the work is the vital thing for those living in them. We will be monitoring this very carefully and chasing up the completion of those works as time goes on.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, we will not complete the remediation work that we are discussing under this Question, nor achieve the Government’s ambitious but very welcome target of 1.5 million new homes being built, without the necessary skilled workforce. We know from the Office for National Statistics that there are 35,000 job vacancies in the construction sector, over half of which cannot be filled due to a lack of skills—the highest for any sector. Does my noble friend agree that it was a very welcome announcement from the Treasury last week that the Government plan to inject £600 million into training up 60,000 more construction workers by 2029? Will she further tell the House how we can encourage the construction sector itself to invest in more brickies, chippies and sparkies who can build the safe homes that we all need?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I totally agree with my noble friend. I was very pleased to hear yesterday that in the Spring Statement there will be an announcement of £600 million investment into the construction and skills sector, delivering around 60,000 workers over the course of the Parliament. We need to address the leaky pipeline and to expand course provision to make sure there is enough funding for training routes and apprenticeships, skills boot camps and other further education courses. Then we need to ensure the system has the required capacity. To deliver those courses, we need to address the 10% vacancy rate for construction teachers and be imaginative in how we do that. We need to take every action we can to get the right people with the right skills in the right places. It is one of the most important pieces of the puzzle that we must get right.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire who is not participating in this process. I speak in support of the regret Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. As chairman of the Local Government Association, I campaigned vigorously for greater devolution, and I am still very supportive of devolution. I also led a unitary council for 10 years and can testify to the benefits of unitary councils. However, if we are genuinely to have devolution and well-run services, it needs to be locally led, with real powers and local accountability. We cannot treat local government as little more than a delivery arm of central government, tied up in regulation, with budget controls and with central targets and funding pots.

When this country saw the biggest improvement in health, education, social support, infrastructure and so forth, it was all locally led. If you go back to the turn of the 20th century, local government was truly empowered, delivering education, health, social care, social support, infrastructure and even gas and water supplies. It was genuinely financially independent of central government. Over the last century, central government has steadily eroded the role of local government, placed more controls and reduced its financial freedoms while increasing burdens on local councils.

I am a believer that form should follow function. We should see real devolution which would enable genuine financial independence from central government, with a much greater role in economic development, community health, education and skills for getting people back to work; this would enable every area to flourish with real levelling up. This is what the Government should have started with, because locally we could have then answered the question of what would be appropriate structures to deliver this. It would also significantly reduce local argument as the prize and objective would have been clear to all.

Instead, we have top-down reorganisation. The Government have been clear that they intend to use their large majority in the other place to force through unitarisation and have mayors across the country. There is a clear message that funding will be tight, so councils will have to make significant savings, which the Government expect to be delivered by unitarisation. It is understandable that, in these circumstances, many councils have concluded that it is better to participate in order to have some control over their destiny and potentially some meagre rewards, rather than be done to by government diktat.

So I have sympathy with those councils that, due to the need to meet a government-imposed timetable, asked for a delay in their elections. But it did not need to be this way. The Government could and should have worked with local government. They should have brought forward real proposals for real devolution with a clear timetable that respected the democratic process. They should have brought forward proposals to address some of the biggest issues in local government, such as social care and SEND. They should have looked at how, by addressing the perverse incentives, the blockages in the system and creating genuine local place-based working, these could have been addressed.

You cannot look at local government reorganisation without looking at, for instance, the healthcare system and how that works. But, no, this Government are favouring imposition over co-operation, avoiding the difficult decisions and not delivering real devolution. That is why I will be supporting by noble friend Lady Scott’s Motion to Regret.

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

My Lords, that has been a really interesting debate. I understand and I have listened to the concerns around the Chamber. The Government have been very clear on our manifesto commitment to widen devolution to more areas. We have been clear on our vision for a simpler, more sustainable local government structure, alongside transfer of power and funding out of Westminster through a devolution process. We have been clear on our willingness to take all the appropriate steps needed to deliver this vision, working with councils to fix the foundations of local government and support communities to join the devolution revolution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness accept that, under Section 7 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act—which governs local government reorganisation—it is a statutory requirement that all principal authorities are engaged with? By that I mean not just the county councils but all the districts, upper tier unitaries and so forth—not the parishes but the principal authorities. Does the noble Baroness further accept that only 30 or so of the 200 or so councils that should have been consulted were actually consulted?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will answer the noble Lord’s point further in a moment. Following a question he asked me earlier, I checked the legal requirements, and my understanding is that all the legal requirements have been met in this process.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Jones and Lady Fox, raised the issue of democratic accountability and elections. To clear up a point, there are no elections postponed in Devon. I do not know whether that was raised with the noble Baronesses, but elections are not postponed in Devon. Nothing is being imposed on local areas. The commitment to join the devolution priority programme and the emerging proposals for new unitary councils were all bottom-up. All requests for election delays to unlock reorganisation and devolution to the fastest possible timeline followed direct requests from the leaders of affected upper-tier councils—not the Secretary of State, as was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

Devolution and strong councils with the right powers mean that hard-working councillors and mayors can focus on delivering for their residents. That will strengthen the democratic accountability of local government to local residents. Postponing this small number of elections will enable mayoral devolution to be delivered in parallel with reduced timescales, so that working people and communities get those benefits—the powers, funding and freedoms—far more quickly, with mayoral elections and elections to new councils increasing democratic accountability, not reducing it.

We do not agree that there is a lack of consultation. We are consulting now in eight of these council areas on mayoral devolution, and we have asked councils to engage widely as they develop their proposals for reorganisation. Once a proposal has been submitted, it will be for the Government to decide on taking a proposal forward and then to consult, as required by statute. Some 13,000 people have responded to those consultations already, so people are engaging with the process.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the timetable. I think there has been some misunderstanding, so I will cover this. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked for clarity on the timetable, and I understand why she would want that, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Scott and Lady Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Fuller. The starting point is for all elections to go ahead, unless there is strong justification. In May 2026, we intend that mayoral elections for new strategic authorities will take place, alongside those district and unitary elections already scheduled and elections postponed from May 2025. For any area in which elections are postponed, we will work with areas to move to elections to new shadow unitary councils as soon as possible, as is the usual arrangement in the process of local government reorganisation. For areas in the priority programme, this will mean mayoral elections in May 2026, alongside and in addition to the rescheduled local elections. We will work with areas to move to new shadow unitary elections as quickly as possible.

Postponement is essential for the delivery of the devolution priority programme, with inaugural mayoral elections in May 2026 and complementary reorganisation. We have no plans to postpone district council elections in 2026; we intend these to take place as scheduled, alongside elections postponed in 2025. The date of any unitary council elections will depend on the nature of proposals for local government reorganisation and progress on the development of those proposals. They are moving on different timetables.

On the issue of strategic planning, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Pinnock, local plans will still be the responsibility of local authorities. Strategic planning at mayoral level will inform that planning, not replace it. It is done at mayoral rather than national level, so this is increasing devolution, not reducing it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made a point about saving money. We have had a PwC report, which set out the opportunity for areas undertaking reorganisation to achieve efficiencies when moving to a single unitary structure. In fact, North Yorkshire Council, established in 2023, expects to achieve more than £40 million in savings by March 2026. There is precedent for significant savings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned Surrey. This single-year postponement is intended to give local leaders the time and capacity to plan for new structures, with local leadership in place until after the full reorganisation proposals have been submitted. We agreed to delay elections in Surrey to expedite local government reorganisation because of the perilous financial state of some of the authorities in that locality. The Government are getting on with delivering this.

All two-tier areas have been invited to develop proposals for reorganisation. I am delighted to confirm that every single area, comprising councils of all political stripes, has responded to the invitation to reorganise and submit an interim plan by 21 March. A Written Ministerial Statement has been laid before the House today, setting out the details.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I think the noble Lord, Lord Khan, probably replied better than I could on this. In response to her question about the date, we do not have powers to delay a date; we can delay only the year, not the date. It would require primary legislation to postpone until June.

The noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Fuller, raised the issue of precedence in postponing elections. Between 2019 and 2022, the Conservative Government legislated to postpone 17 local council elections for one year and cancelled a further 13 elections as part of legislation giving effect to unitarisation proposals, with the latter having the effect that the elections did not take place, as the councils were abolished. All local elections scheduled to take place in 2020 were subsequently postponed, of course, because of Covid. I could go into further detail, but I will not take up noble Lords’ time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised the issue of boundary review. I am very happy to write to her further on the timetable. On the process for local government boundary review, I know, because we have just gone through it in Stevenage, what a thorough process that is. There is no intention to curtail the process of extensive consultation as we go through this process.

My noble friend Lord Bach referred to the process of devolution and the need for a modern and efficient local government system, and I agree with him 100%. We have had three decades of delay in moving this forward, so to noble Lords who said this is rushed and hurried, can I just say that it does not feel that way to me? I have been in local government for 30 years, and we have been trying to do it for all that time. In relation to the English cities, for councils which have not already been part of a reorganisation process, if those areas feel it is appropriate, they will have submitted those changes in their plans or they will be working them for the second stage of planning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, on the question of the manifesto and devolution, I do not think it was very clear to communities or individuals that “devolution” also meant local government reorganisation.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hear the noble Baroness’s view, but the councils that have come forward feel that they need that reorganisation to enter properly into the devolution process. If we are going to get powers and funding out of this bit of Westminster and out to the areas, that elected representation at local level is key.

The Motions put forward by the noble Baronesses would be an unprecedented step by the House of Lords, with serious constitutional and practical consequences. The Motions undermine the convention of the primacy of the Commons and the principle of delegated powers, which have been given in primary legislation granted here and have been previously used in this way. All appropriate steps were taken, and both process and precedent carefully followed.

A vote to agree with these Motions for Annulment at this stage, the evening before the last day by which elections must be called, would throw areas into chaos, damaging the safe running of those elections and confusing the live consultations that are under way, in which we are receiving significant public interest, with, as I said, over 13,000 responses already. The people engaged believe, as we do, that the order is in the interests of the people we all serve. The Motions would slow down the delivery of the benefits of mayoral devolution and strong unitary local government to those areas. It is these Motions, not the order they object to, that are damaging to local democracy. I urge you in the strongest terms to deny them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I forgot to mention that I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. A lot of issues were raised and the Minister has given a very full answer, which I am sure I will read with great interest in Hansard tomorrow. Clearly, she and the Government will be held to account on that.

It seems a little mean to accuse us of bringing this so late to your Lordships’ House when actually it is the Government’s timetable that we are operating to. We had no choice. The fact that it is 7 pm on the night before is not our choice; it is the Government’s choice to do it, so the Government have made it too late to do this.

There is also the fact that Labour has completely changed the meaning of devolution. What is happening is not devolution; it is actually sucking power upwards. My Motion is not about devolution but about the way it is being done. I think that is deeply undemocratic, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, had to say about it. I am quite disappointed that the Conservatives, His Majesty’s Opposition, could not vote for a fatal Motion. I did use their wording in my fatal Motion to encourage them, but clearly that did not work. If the Government are wrong—on this side of the Chamber we all agree that they are wrong—surely we want to draw that mistake to their attention. They are making a terrible mistake, and if we are not going to draw their attention to something like this now, when are we going to do it?

I also regret that the Liberal Democrats did not reach out before tabling their Motion. That is a real shame. I am not known for my powers of compromise, but I am, I think—I hope—known for my principles, and I would have done my best to come to some agreement. The Liberal Democrats did not attempt that, so to me what they are doing now looks like game playing, not a principled move. Surely a fatal Motion is a fatal Motion, and whether you vote for mine or for theirs, it does the same thing: it draws attention to the fact that many of us are not happy about what is happening. We care about local democracy, not game playing.

Affected councillors and residents do not have a vote here, but we do, and there are times when we really ought to use that vote for the common good. I feel that is not happening this evening. I hate to waste the time of your Lordships’ House, despite the fact that it is only 7 pm—it is not even my bedtime yet, and I go to bed very early.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 January be approved.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 March.

Motion agreed.

Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 February be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 3 March.

[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 and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Khan, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025 were laid before the House on 13 January 2025. These draft regulations increase planning fees for householder and other applications. This will provide essential extra funds to local planning authorities and improve the efficiency of our planning system. This is vital to speed up decision-making and support the Government’s plan of building 1.5 million homes and delivering economic growth.

I will start by providing some context and background to these regulations. Currently, the income from planning fees does not cover the cost to local planning authorities of determining applications. Overall, there is a national funding shortfall of approximately £362 million, the burden of which is borne by the general taxpayer. By increasing fees for applications with the greatest funding shortfalls, we can cover a greater proportion of the costs associated with processing these applications.

It is estimated that these fee increases will generate an additional £56 million annually for local planning authorities. This is a substantial sum that will significantly enhance the capacity and efficiency of our planning services.

We consulted on proposals to increase fees in July 2024. Respondents were generally supportive of our proposals, recognising the need to boost the funds available to local planning authorities, if this leads to improvements in planning performance. Noble Lords will realise that the Local Government Association has long campaigned for increases in planning fees.

I now turn to the detail of the regulations. First, they increase the fees for householders who want to enlarge, extend or alter their home from £258 to £528 for a single house and from £509 to £1,043 for more than one house. I recognise that some may consider that, during times of economic pressures for householders, we should not be increasing planning fees. However, in light of the clear funding shortfall that exists, it is right that applicants should contribute more towards the costs incurred by local planning authorities in delivering a planning service, rather than the taxpayer funding it.

We estimate that, in most cases, the cost of the planning application is less than 1% of overall development costs. Furthermore, some householder development can already be undertaken through permitted development rights and so would not be subject to a planning application fee.

The regulations also increase fees for a range of other application types, which currently are set too low. They increase the planning fees for prior approval applications from a flat fee of £120 to £240 and from £258 to £516 where they include building operations, and for the change of use of commercial buildings to residential uses from £125 per dwelling to £250 per dwelling. The regulations also increase the fees for discharge of conditions from £43 to £86 for householders and from £145 to £298 for all other applications, including discharge of biodiversity gain plans.

Finally, the regulations introduce a new three-tiered fee structure for Section 73 applications that are used to vary or remove conditions on planning applications. This reflects the higher costs associated with Section 73 applications on major developments. The regulations also make corrections to two fees that were erroneously set too low when the fee regulations were last amended in 2023. These regulations do not impose a fee on listed building consents, which continue to incur no fee.

I want to be clear that the Government expect local planning authorities to use the income from planning fees on their planning application service, so that they can build up their capability and capacity and improve performance. We know that this is what applicants expect in return for paying higher fees. In addition to these fee increases, the Government have committed to a £46 million package to enhance the capacity and capability of local planning officers. This includes recruiting 300 additional planners. I recognise that there is no planning officer tree where we can go and pick them; this is going to take a little time.

The Government have also announced their intention to introduce a measure in the planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. This comprehensive approach ensures that local planning authorities are not only better funded but better equipped to handle the demands placed on them.

To summarise, while we take forward our measures for local fee setting, these regulations will provide local planning authorities with an immediate boost in resourcing. This will enable local planning authorities to budget with more confidence and be better equipped to deliver the housing and growth that our country needs. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support this rise in planning fees, so I apologise now for repeating some of the very good points that the Minister made. She should not expect me to keep saying that for ever, but I do on this occasion.

We have all known for years that planning departments are underfunded; they are not covering their costs, and the position is simply unsustainable. I am interested that the Government have decided to go for an interim position rather than a full cost recovery. I can kind of understand their wanting it to be balanced, but I wonder whether the work has been done on what will be needed to get to that position, which we believe we should get to.

As the Minister said, planning departments have long been subsidised by the taxpayer through council tax; they have been bearing the burden of the costs of planning applications, which do not directly benefit them—particularly for individual householder applications. It seems completely illogical that everyone should contribute to an individual’s home improvements, which usually add value to just their property.

We welcome the change of emphasis from the last Government, who did at least increase the fees in December 2023—but I always felt that their agenda seemed to be to keep fees down. I note that a Conservative Member of Parliament in the other place described the rise as “eye-watering”. My riposte is that he clearly does not know what builders are charging these days, as the planning fee, which is an essential tool to getting the development right, is but a tiny fraction of the total cost. Two friends have recently had extensions to their homes, and when I hear how much they spent on the projects as a whole, I feel that £528 is probably the lowest in the grand scheme of their costs.

Major housebuilders are demonstrably making money, and their applications take the most time and expertise, so a rise to begin to cover costs seems entirely reasonable—more so given the financial challenges that local government faces. Some of the pre-app talks and site visits can be really extensive and time consuming.

If we have a concern regarding sustainability, it is about the recruitment and retention of planners. The ambition to recruit 300 new planners is laudable and welcome, and it seems churlish to point out the fact that it equates to just one planner per authority—but that is the reality. The Home Builders Federation pointed out, through a freedom of information request, that 80% of local planning authorities are operating below capacity.

The recruitment and retention problem is exacerbated by differential salaries. The best young graduates appear to be snapped up by the major housebuilders, as they can afford to pay significantly more than local authorities. Especially in areas of high house prices, that can make recruitment even more of a challenge.

The Minister will know that some local authorities are working together to look for solutions by co-operating rather than working against each other, competing for the same people and even poaching. Career opportunities can be better for an individual if they can work across several councils, especially with smaller districts.

The RTPI has pointed an important fact—that there is a lack of robust data on how many planning officers we have in each region and local planning area. Accurate data would help to pinpoint where resources and training are most needed, so perhaps the Minister could give us some more detail on the changes to the Pathways to Planning programme.

We think that all these increases are necessary and overdue, and accept that it is sensible to tie this to an annual increase. The fact that previous rises were not index-linked was part of the problem. The gap between the cost of processing an application and the fees charged has widened significantly over time.

There has been some talk of monitoring and ring-fencing of funds. Because of the parlous situation of local government funding, will local authorities rob Peter to pay Paul? In my experience, most councils will honour the intentions of government when money is handed out for specific needs, and we see no reason why that would not be the case here, without the need to mandate it or introduce checks. This Government are committed to decentralisation, so it is essential to let go and trust local authorities. Trying to micromanage budgets could be unnecessarily overbearing. We believe that councils should make all their own spending decisions. The Government already have mechanisms in place to monitor planning performance.

The Minister was right to point out that councils get no fees from the massive extension to permitted development rights, yet when there are problems with those conversions, the planners are drafted in to give advice and help to put things right. The key is that if there had been a need to obtain planning permission, the issues would have been sorted out right at the beginning. Will the forthcoming planning Bill be more helpful in this regard? We hope so, and in particular we look forward to allowing local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. A degree of flexibility to adjust to local circumstances and needs is essential.

--- Later in debate ---

As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, planning officers can be like hen’s teeth. I am very pleased that the Minister for Skills has come into the Room, because one of the keys to this is that many councils would like to develop more of their own planning officers but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned, we may take them through an apprenticeship process for them to be immediately poached. It is important that, when we look at the apprenticeship system and the apprenticeship levy, there should be more flexibility in how councils use them to encourage more apprentices and for councils not to be just training schools for the private sector.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to noble Lords for their helpful comments and overall support for this increase in planning fees. As I said, it is something that the Local Government Association and the local government community have campaigned on for some time. Before I go into some of the other specific issues, I too am glad that my noble friend from the Department for Education is here; the issue of skills and the development of skills in planning is critical to driving that key mission of delivering the 1.5 million homes that we know are desperately needed in the country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised the sufficiency of the fee increase. These increases have been targeted to those applications with the greatest funding shortfalls, and that is why this interim measure has been structured in this way. Those applications constitute the greatest proportion of applications received by local planning authorities so, as I said in my introduction, this will provide them with an immediate and significant boost, then the planning and infrastructure Bill will set the wider framework when we come to it. As the noble Baroness said, planning fees represent only about 1% of development costs and we do not consider that burden disproportionate.

Both noble Lords raised the issue of capacity and capability in the planning system. It is worth repeating that we have put together a £46 million package of investment. My noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern set up Skills England so that we can try to attract more people to be planners, and that funding will provide the recruitment and training of 300 additional planners and the development of the skills needed. We have already recruited a cohort of around 20 senior built environment professionals, across a range of specialisms, to work directly with and advise local authorities, and with Homes England as our delivery partner. We are also developing a wider programme of support, working with partners across the planning sector, to make sure that local planning authorities have the skills and capacity that they need. I am very pleased that the Construction Industry Training Board has also stepped up and put some money towards this project.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned that accurate data is needed and asked me for an update on Pathways to Planning. We fund the Local Government Association’s Pathways to Planning and, on 27 February, we announced an allocation of £4.5 million for the Local Government Association’s initiative to fund salary bursaries for new planning roles in councils. I hope that gives her some indication of where we are going with that.

The noble Baroness mentioned ring-fencing. We are not specifically ring-fencing planning fees, but we have been clear that we expect the income from planning fees to be retained and directly invested in the delivery of planning application services. Ring-fencing will be considered as part of the longer-term plans that will enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees, but the noble Baroness is quite right that, as local authorities face a difficult financial position at the moment, they should have the flexibility to decide where their funding is going.

The noble Baroness also mentioned permitted development rights. We know that national permitted development rights play a role in the planning system, but we acknowledge that there has been criticism of them, particularly those that enable a range of commercial buildings, such as offices, shops and agricultural buildings, to change use, including to residential use. There have been some good examples of that, but there have also been some pretty poor ones. We continue to keep permitted development rights under review.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, raised the important issue of why this increase is focused on householders. We are increasing the fees for householders because these have the greatest funding shortfalls, as I said. The fees for major applications are estimated more closely to cover the costs to local planning authorities. It is not possible to increase fees for developers above cost-recovery levels in order to cover the costs of other applications. That is the reason for this measure. The forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill will enable planning authorities to set their own planning fees, but we have to take action now to address the funding shortfalls. To support our measures to enable planning authorities to set their own planning fees, we will undertake a benchmarking exercise to establish the robust baseline that we need for full cost recovery of all planning fees.

The noble Lord mentioned the key issue of small builders and medium-sized enterprises. We recognise the need for a diverse housing market sector that can respond to local needs. SMEs are an indispensable part of our housebuilding sector. We know that they have a vital role in making the housing market more diverse and resilient and contribute to housing supply by building out the majority of small sites. I have had great personal experiences—as I am sure both noble Lords have had in their areas—of SMEs making a big contribution.

Through our planning reforms, we are committed to ensuring that the right support is in place for SMEs, and we have engaged extensively with the sector to better understand existing challenges. On 12 December last year, we published the revised NPPF, which makes clear the necessity of ensuring that sufficient small sites are made available to support SME housebuilders and to better enable authorities to support that community-led development. We are committed to strengthening small sites policy and providing additional support for SME housebuilders with further measures later this year.

Planning performance is a key issue, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. How do we ensure that increased fees result in better performance by local authorities? In return for increasing planning fees, we expect local authorities to invest more in their planning services to deliver better performance. We will continue to monitor the performance of local planning authorities through the planning performance dashboard and quarterly planning statistics. The planning performance regime ensures that underperforming local planning authorities are held to account; it is an important way of making sure that that happens.

The noble Lord referred to the new NPPF and to simplification and clarity in the planning system. It is a complicated system—I understand that. We attempted to simplify the system with the NPPF, and we will continue to look at what further measures are necessary. When we get the planning and infrastructure Bill, we will hopefully be able to clarify the system further for everybody who needs to use it. If I have not covered any points, I will look at Hansard and reply in writing.

In conclusion, the proposed increase in fees is a necessary and timely measure. It addresses a critical funding shortfall faced by our local planning authorities and will help provide them with the resources they need to deliver improved services. This will benefit householders, businesses, developers and, ultimately, all of us, as the economy grows and more homes are built. I hope the Committee will welcome these important regulations.

Motion agreed.

Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

Before we proceed, may I just remind colleagues that this is called Question Time for a reason. We want questions, so that the Minister can give an answer.

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

My Lords, the Government entirely understand concerns about the affordability of rents. We have inherited a private rented sector that is failing many low-income renters. The Renters’ Rights Bill will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, as well as taking practical steps to end the practice of rental bidding and prohibiting landlords from demanding large amounts of upfront rent. In addition, the Government are committed to building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England over this Parliament. This boost to supply is critical to improving housing affordability.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response, but current rents remain unaffordable for the 34% of renters in poverty—a figure likely to rise with the freeze of local housing allowance. Private rents increased by more than 8% last year and market rates are already out of reach for so many. The First-tier Tribunal will not resolve any of these issues. Are the Government considering any form of rent stabilisation?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We have discussed this in the Chamber before, and the Government have been clear: we do not support rent controls. Heavy-handed rent controls tend to mean higher rents at the start of a tenancy, and they can make it much harder for prospective tenants to find a home. They also encourage the growth of unregulated sub-letting, which can leave the most vulnerable tenants very exposed to higher costs and minimal protections. Those rent controls always come at a cost, often in reduced investment in housing supply and quality standards. We prefer to use this mechanism to strengthen tenants’ rights.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely. I invite him to speak.

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

My Lords, has my noble friend seen the very interesting briefing from UNISON, which has 1.3 million members? The brief calls for measures to stop escalating rents; increased enforcement and the regulation of landlords and their agents; changes to the benefits system, incentivising work; and measures to end the right to buy in conditions of housing shortage. We urgently need to find a way to ensure that rents in the private sector become affordable. Could Ministers arrange to meet UNISON representatives to discuss their very interesting proposals for reform?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Of course, I am always happy to meet with trade union colleagues, particularly on important issues such as this. I thank him too for his reminder of the information in that UNISON report. Many of the issues raised in it are being tackled in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and in the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill which we will be bringing forward later in the year. On the right to buy, we have already taken significant steps to make sure that the funds from the sale of social housing go back to those councils to enable them to build more social housing.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, rents in the private sector are rising because supply is falling as many smaller landlords decide to sell up. While there is much of value in the Renters’ Rights Bill, there is nothing in it to increase supply, which is what tenants want. Will the Minister turbocharge the discussions between her department, the Treasury and the pension funds and insurance companies in order to get serious, long-term institutional finance into good quality accommodation for rent and to redress the imbalance between supply and demand?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and for all his expertise on this subject. A few weeks ago, I attended an investors’ summit in the City of London where there was great enthusiasm about investment in the housing market. We welcome those institutional investors and recognise the crucial role that the build-to-rent sector in particular is playing in building those 1.5 million homes. Last year, we announced a £700 million extension to the home building fund to support housebuilders and to catalyse that institutional investment. This should support the construction of 12,000 more homes, including build-to-rent. We also announced a £3 billion guarantee for SME and build-to-rent housebuilders through the reopening of guarantee schemes, which should deliver the construction of around 20,000 new homes.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, could the Government also turbocharge getting rid of Section 21, which legalises insecurity in the lives of people paying rent?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the insecurity that Section 21 presents. It is also a huge economic burden on local councils as they pick up the tab for emergency accommodation coming out of Section 21 evictions. That is why our Renters’ Rights Bill contains clear proposals to get rid of Section 21 once and for all.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, in some areas, selective licensing schemes have been introduced because of the poor performance of private landlords. They can make a real difference in improving standards. Would my noble friend the Minister consider looking at best practice in those schemes, and at whether local authorities could be encouraged to adopt them in areas where landlords are poorly serving their tenants?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am pleased to commend those local authorities which have taken steps to regulate private housing in their areas through the use of selective licensing schemes. We continue to look at how we might better support that going forward.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, when supply goes down and demand goes up, prices increase. What assessment have the Government made of reports that landlords are leaving the rental market at the highest rate ever? Many are citing rental reforms as their reason for leaving.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

If I am honest with the noble Lord, I think the pressures on housing come from 14 years of not taking the housing market seriously. We have carefully assessed what the impact of the Renters’ Rights Bill might be, and we do not believe that it will have a significant impact on the supply of private rented housing in the market. Supply has been consistent for several years, and we want to maintain that and to make sure that the Renters’ Rights Bill delivers the right balance of support for both landlords and tenants. There are many really good landlords, and we want to give them the help and support they need through the Bill, as well as supporting our tenants.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, market rents in the private rented sector are often unaffordable for those on low incomes, which is why I greatly welcome the Government’s announcement this month of more funds for social housing. Roughly what proportion of the 1.5 million new homes the Government are planning for this parliamentary Session will be affordable to those on average incomes and below?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is a key question, and I am afraid it is not possible for me to give a specific answer because we have just set aside social housing in local plans. We will be asking local authorities to determine their local need for social housing.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, one consequence of sustained high rents in the private sector is the conversion of family homes into HMOs. Are the Government monitoring this trend, and what action are they taking on the loss of family homes in this way?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand the point the right reverend Prelate makes about the conversion of family homes into HMOs. I do not have those figures here, so I will write to her with a response.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, evidence from Scotland shows that only 4% of tenants with a rent rise use the First-tier Tribunal to challenge that rise. How will the Government ensure that more tenants are aware of and use this right? Does the Minister accept that, in a system where demand significantly outstrips supply, a tribunal decision that the rent is fair does not make it affordable?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I absolutely understand the point the noble Baroness makes, but tenants will be able to dispute rent increases they think are above market rate by referring their case to the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market, and it will determine the rent. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence, and the tribunal will not be able to determine a rent increase higher than the landlord had originally proposed—all through our Renters’ Rights Bill. So we are improving the position for tenants, and for landlords, who will be able to make their case at the tribunal.

Solar Panels

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to ensure that all new-build commercial and industrial premises in England are fitted with solar panels.

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

My Lords, the Future Homes and Building Standards consultation, setting out proposals for new energy efficiency standards, was published at the end of 2023. It included proposals for fitting new, non-domestic premises with solar panels. The consultation received over 2,000 responses. We have carefully considered the feedback received and, while I do not want to pre-judge our detailed policy announcement, I can say that this Government recognise the vital role of rooftop solar in contributing to the clean energy mission and that we are therefore keen to see solar panels deployed on all buildings where it is appropriate and practical. We intend to publish the government response in the coming months.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply; I know how passionately she feels about this issue. Is she aware that only a ridiculously small number of industrial and commercial premises are fitted with solar panels? There has been just too little urgency for many years to change that outrageous state of affairs. I live near what is called the largest logistics park in Europe and have been informed that there are no solar panels on any of the vast number of buildings that make up the park. Can the Government ensure that this national scandal is treated as a matter of urgency?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments. Of course, it is vital that we get on now and get this moving as quickly as possible. The future buildings standards consultation outlined a number of proposals for new non-domestic buildings and we need to expand that to existing non-domestic buildings. We are ambitious and believe that the standards we set are technically achievable and affordable across all sites. We are working very closely with colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to confirm the technical detail of these standards. As soon as we can, we will make sure that we do what is necessary to get this out to as many non-domestic buildings as possible. Your Lordships have my personal commitment to that, as the noble Lord kindly said.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. Can the Government look also at all government buildings, because there are a lot of savings we can make? I am pleased to say that Leicester City Council has started to look at how it can issue tenders for solar on its properties in the city.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness and congratulate Leicester on the work it is doing in this space. It is important to say that current standards, introduced in December 2021, already encourage the use of solar panels in non-domestic buildings, and they are expected to produce around 27% lower carbon emissions compared with those built to the previous standards. To meet the 2021 standards, they are expected to be built with very high fabric standards and improved building services, including heat pumps and solar panels. When we make our announcement, we will encourage as many non-domestic building owners as possible to take that on board and to use every technique they can to improve the standards they work to, including on government buildings.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. The Minister’s remarks about the consultation and its results were extremely encouraging and I am grateful to her for them. She spoke about the role of solar panels in the Government’s clean energy mission, but does she agree with me that, particularly for industrial buildings, the fitting of solar panels makes economic and financial sense and gives the people working in those businesses and buildings both energy sufficiency and lower bills?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that the fitting of more efficient energy methods contributes to both the energy security of our country and the efficiency of those buildings. It is very important that we focus on that as much as we can and we will do all we can to encourage that with non-domestic buildings. Some technical issues came up as part of the consultation responses—we had 2,000 responses, including some on the fitting of solar panels to roofs and other efficiency measures—and it is important that we look at them before we issue our statement.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, one of the big challenges in encouraging more solar panels on large industrial premises is the lack of ability to connect to the national grid. I am sure that the Government are aware of that challenge, but what are they going to do about it?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important question for all the growth that we are predicting for our country. My colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working very closely with the national grid to improve grid capacity; it will be essential to have that going forward. We need to make sure that that is the case, both to drive the growth that we want to see, because energy is vital to that, and to keep our energy security for the country the way we want it as we grow the economy.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, there is currently a potential conflict between the Government’s desire to ensure all rental homes have a minimum EPC energy efficiency rating of C and planning restrictions for buildings that are either listed or in a conservation zone. This is forcing many housing associations to look at selling many affected but much-needed affordable homes. What will the Government do to address this issue?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have had issues around energy efficiency improvements to heritage and listed buildings. It is important to get the balance here right, though. Of course, we want to drive energy efficiency and we will be working with all the conservation associations, including Historic England, to look at what more we can do to drive energy efficiency as effectively as possible while still preserving the very important heritage aspects of the buildings in this country.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, could the Government consider making it a legal requirement? Even the terrible Government of the past 14 years tried to encourage people. But that does not work. You need to make it a legal requirement. And it is popular. I do not understand why this Government do not go for a popular policy for a change.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have a whole range of popular policies, which, I suggest, is why we are here and the other side are not. We are considering measures. We put extra measures into the national planning policy framework and we will continue to do what we can. I like to encourage people where possible. If that does not work, we may have to look again. It is very important that we do everything we can to sell the benefits of having solar panels and other energy-efficient methods of generating heat and other forms of energy and we will continue to do that.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, it is frequently quoted that ground-mounted solar installations take over 0.1% of UK land, which will increase to 0.3% when our net zero ambitions are met. However, I have figures that suggest that 0.44% of UK land is already committed for ground- mounted installations, with the geographical distribution concentrated in the breadbasket of south and east England. This means that Nottinghamshire, for example, is likely to have 4% of its ground area covered with solar panels. The use of land, as well, is disproportionate; important grade 2 and grade 3 agricultural land is being used. Is this consistent with His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to food security?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are being quite clear on this: while we support ground solar installations, premium grade agricultural land should not be used for that purpose. We are very clear on that point and we continue to strive for the right balance right between ground-based solar and roof solar.

[Lord Sharma (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House when the Government intend to publish their much-anticipated solar road map and whether that road map will contain a detailed plan to support investment in domestic UK solar supply chains and manufacturing?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. I am very interested in supply chains. Some fantastic, innovative technology is being developed in this country that I think will take us a long way ahead. There are significant issues about developing our manufacturing capability here, but we are working very closely with our colleagues in DBT and DSIT to do what we can to promote that. I cannot give the noble Lord an exact date for the solar road map, but I will come back to him in writing on that.